McIntosh v. Taylor et al

3:26-cv-00030IlsdOct 14, 2026

Full text

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JEFFREY MCINTOSH, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 26-CV-00030-MAB
)
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TAYLOR, 	)
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER VINSON, and 	)
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FREEMAN, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BEATTY, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Jeffrey McIntosh, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections who
is 	currently 	incarcerated 	at 	Shawnee 	Correctional 	Center, 	brings 	this 	action 	for
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. McIntosh’s original
Complaint (Doc. 1), alleging an assault by an inmate, was dismissed without prejudice
for failure to state a claim (Doc. 13). He was granted leave to file an amended pleading.
In his Amended Complaint (Doc. 15), McIntosh again alleges that he was assaulted by
another inmate.
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Amended
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.1 Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to
1 The Court has jurisdiction to screen the Complaint in light of Plaintiff’s consent to the full jurisdiction of
a Magistrate Judge, and the limited consent by the Illinois Department of Corrections and the medical
providers, to the exercise of Magistrate Judge jurisdiction as set forth in the Memoranda of Understanding
between this Court and these entities.
Case 3:26-cv-00030-MAB Document 17 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>
2
screen prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
Any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law
is immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The Amended Complaint
On October 31, 2025, McIntosh’s cellmate had their cell door opened so that he
could attend an appointment in the healthcare unit (Doc. 15, p. 6). McIntosh alleges that
after his cellmate left, McIntosh noted that the door was not completely closed and he got
off his bunk and closed the cell door (Id.). Five minutes later he saw Inmate Castro walk
past his cell and heard a door click open. McIntosh did not realize that it was his cell door
opening until Castro approached his door and started yelling at him (Id.). McIntosh
contends the whole unit could hear Castro as he yelled that McIntosh was a sex offender
and then proceeded to punch McIntosh in the head and face (Id. at pp. 6-7). Castro then
strangled 	McIntosh 	and 	again 	punched 	him 	in 	the 	head, 	causing 	him 	to 	lose
consciousness (Id. at p. 7). Castro left and slammed the cell door shut behind him.
McIntosh’s cellmate returned almost immediately and requested Officer Taylor to
“pop” his cell door (Doc. 15, p. 7). Another inmate informed his cellmate that Castro
attacked McIntosh. His cellmate tried to push the emergency button which did not work
and then he informed Correctional Officer Vinson of McIntosh’s injuries (Id. at pp. 7-8).
Officers Vinson and Freeman returned to the cell with a sergeant and took Castro to intel
to speak with officers while taking McIntosh to segregation under investigative status (Id.
at p. 8). McIntosh later spoke to intel and gave a signed statement (Id.). McIntosh alleges
Case 3:26-cv-00030-MAB Document 17 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>
3
that he remained in segregation for sixteen days (Id.). Despite being told that he would
receive medical care on Monday, he did not receive medical attention until he was
returned to general population (Id.). After the sixteenth day, he was returned to general
population and two days later was taken to the healthcare unit for x-rays (Id.).
Discussion
McIntosh once again fails to state a claim. Although he mentions several officers
throughout his pleading, he fails to allege how each violated his constitutional rights. In
his request for relief, he alleges that he is suing “the administration” for failing to protect
him (Doc. 15, p. 9). In order to state a failure to protect claim, a plaintiff must allege that
“he was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm and…the
defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his health or safety.” Santiago v. Walls,
599 F.3d 749, 756 (7th Cir. 2010) (quotations omitted). A plaintiff must show that prison
officials were aware of a specific, impending, and substantial threat to their safety, often
by showing “that he complained to prison officials about a specific threat to his safety.”
Pope v. Shafer, 86 F.3d 90, 92 (7th Cir. 1996). McIntosh fails to allege that any of the three
officers identified as defendants were aware of a specific and substantial threat to
McIntosh’s safety, particularly as it relates to Inmate Castro. McIntosh alleges that he saw
Castro walk past his cell and heard his cell door “pop” but there are no allegations to
suggest that any of the officers opened McIntosh’s cell for Castro or had any knowledge
of the impending assault. He also alleges that Castro yelled loudly but there are no
allegations to suggest that any of the defendants were present or had a chance to
intervene. See Harper v. Albert, 400 F.3d 1052, 1064 (7th Cir. 2005). McIntosh also notes that
Case 3:26-cv-00030-MAB Document 17 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>
4
he did not receive medical care until 16 days after the assault, but there are no allegations
to suggest that he requested medical care from any of the named defendants. Thus,
McIntosh once again fails to state a claim.
This is McIntosh’s second attempt at stating a viable claim and he has been unable
to do so. The Court finds that further amendment would be futile. Thus, McIntosh’s
Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Disposition
For the reasons stated above, McIntosh’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 15) is
DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the case and
enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 14, 2026
MARK A. BEATTY
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00030-MAB Document 17 Filed 10/14/26 Page 4 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.