Moon v. Murray et al

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 3:25-cv-01210-NJR
Document 18 Filed 02/04/26 #
Page 1 of 10 Page ID
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DAVEON MOON,
Plaintiff,
V.
Case No. 25-cv-1210-NJR
KEVIN MURRAY, SERGEANT PEREZ, and JACOB GUETERSLOH,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Plaintiff Daveon Moon, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections who is currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the Complaint, Moon alleges that Defendants violated his rights when they used excessive force and failed to obtain him medical treatment.
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to 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).
1
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO

2
The Complaint
On January 9, 2024, at approximately 10:00 – 11:45 a.m., Correctional Officer Kevin
Murray approached Moon’s cell in North 2 and asked if Moon wanted to go to a one-on-
one with mental health staff (Doc. 1, p. 6). Moon indicated that he wanted to attend the
meeting. When Murray came back to Moon’s cell to transport him to the appointment,
Moon alleges that Murray seemed aggressive (Id.). He instructed Moon to turn around to
be cuffed and then overly tightened the cuffs on Moon’s wrists (Id.). As he was tightening
the cuffs, Murray indicated that he wanted to kill him and used a racially derogatory term
to describe Moon.
Moon asked Murray why he would say that to him, and Murray replied that he
did not appreciate inmates filing PREA reports on officers (Doc. 1, p. 6). Moon inquired
as to what report Moon was referring to and Murray noted that Moon should not have
filed a PREA complaint against Sergeant Perez while he was at Pontiac Correctional
Center (Id. at pp. 6-7).
While transporting Moon to mental health staff, Moon alleges that Murray fondled
Moon’s penis and backside (Doc. 1, p. 7). Moon immediately stated that he wanted to file
a PREA complaint against Murray because he was groping Moon. As the pair approached
the top of the stairs, Murray allegedly pushed Moon down the stairs (Id.). Moon suffered
injuries to his left knee, right wrist, and hands (Id.). Murray also stated that he would
make sure that none of Moon’s grievances would be answered (Id.). Moon alleges that
his injuries were subsequently confirmed by medical staff (Id.). He was placed on crisis
Case 3:25-cv-01210-NJR Document 18 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
watch for several days due to the mental health episodes allegedly triggered by the
assault (Id.).
After the assault, Moon wrote numerous grievances and attempted to contact his
counselor (Doc. 1, p. 7). Counselor Jacob Guetersloh spoke to Moon in August or
September 2024 and said that he did not favor African American inmates, referring to
Moon by a racial slur (Id.). Moon informed officers that he wanted to file a grievance
against Guetersloh, but the gallery officer he spoke to left his post without providing
Moon with a grievance (Id.). Moon was unable to complain about the incidents involving
Murray, Perez, and Guetersloh (Id.).
Also after the assault, Moon alleges that he needed follow-up medical attention
(Doc. 1, p. 8). He informed several nurses who passed by his cell, but they informed him
that they were not allowed to provide him with medical care on the orders of Jacob
Guetersloh and Kevin Murray (Id.).
Preliminary Dismissals
Although Moon lists Sergeant Perez as a defendant in the case caption he only
alleges that Murray referred to a PREA complaint Moon filed against Perez (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Moon fails to include any of the allegations regarding the events that led to that
complaint. He later states that he seeks to allege an Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment
violation by Perez for sexually assaulting him but fails to offer any facts regarding the
Case 3:25-cv-01210-NJR Document 18 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>

4
assault or when it occurred. His threadbare allegations regarding Perez fail to state a
claim. Thus, any claim against Perez is DISMISSED without prejudice. 1
Moon also alleges that Jacob Guetersloh violated his Fourteenth Amendment
rights by using racially derogatory language and for “ignoring [his] multiple other
grievance issues.” (Doc. 1, p. 8). But the use of racially derogatory language, on its own,
does not violate the constitution. DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000). As to
Guetersloh, Moon merely alleges that he used a racial slur when talking to him. Further,
his allegations regarding his claim under the First Amendment are threadbare. He alleges
that Guetersloh spoke to him after writing to his counselors numerous times, but there
are no allegations to suggest that Guetersloh specifically denied his request for a
grievance or sought to retaliate against him for previous filings. Although Moon alleges
that other officers later “disappeared” when he asked for grievances, he fails to allege
that Guetersloh was involved in those requests. There are simply no allegations to
suggest 	that 	Guetersloh 	violated 	his 	rights 	under 	either 	the 	First 	or 	Fourteenth
Amendment.
1 The assault involving Perez allegedly took place when Moon was housed at Pontiac Correctional
Center. Moon notes that Perez is a sergeant at Pontiac. Venue for federal civil rights actions
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). According to that statute, such
actions may be brought only in (1) the judicial district where any defendant resides (if all
defendants reside in the same State), (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events
or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant is
subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the action, if there is no district in which
the action may otherwise be brought. Moon’s claims regarding Perez took place at Pontiac which
is located in the federal judicial district for the Central District of Illinois. 28 U.S.C. § 93(b). Should
Moon wish to proceed with his claims regarding the events at Pontiac, he would need to file a
pleading in the United States District Court of the Central District of Illinois.
Case 3:25-cv-01210-NJR Document 18 Filed 02/04/26 Page 4 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>

Case 3:25-cv-01210-NJR
Document 18 Filed 02/04/26 #
Page 5 of 10 Page ID
5

6
Discussion
Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates the following
counts:
Count 1: 	Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Kevin
Murray for his assault on Moon.
Count 2: 	Eighth 	Amendment 	deliberate 	indifference 	to 	medical
needs claim against Kevin Murray and Jacob Guetersloh for
prohibiting 	nurses 	from 	tending 	to 	Moon’s 	injuries
following the assault.
The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders,
unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. Any other claim that is
mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be considered
dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly pleading
standard. 2
As to Count 1, Moon alleges that Murray used force and assaulted him on January
9, 2024. He alleges that Murray overly tightened his handcuffs, inappropriately fondled
him, and then pushed him down the stairs. At this stage, Moon states a viable claim
against Murray in Count 1. Moon also states a viable claim against both Murray and
Guetersloh for their alleged directive to deny Moon medical care for his injuries following
the assault as alleged in Count 2.
2 This includes any claims under the Fourteenth Amendment. Moon only alleges in conclusory
fashion that his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by Defendants. See Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (an action fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face”).
Case 3:25-cv-01210-NJR Document 18 Filed 02/04/26 Page 6 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>

7
Pending Motions
With his Complaint, Moon filed a motion for counsel (Doc. 3). Moon states that he
had a friend’s help in writing his pleading. But Moon fails to indicate whether he has
sought counsel on his own. He only notes that his family says they will secure an attorney
for him (Id. at p. 1).
In determining whether to recruit counsel, the Court is directed to make a two-
fold inquiry: “(1) has the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel
or been effectively precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case,
does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself?” Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654
(7th Cir. 2007) (citing Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 321-22 (7th Cir. 1993)). The first prong
of the analysis is a threshold question. Here, Moon fails to indicate his attempts to obtain
counsel on his own. Thus, his motion for counsel is DENIED. Should he choose to move
for recruitment of counsel at a later date, the Court directs Moon to (1) contact at least
three attorneys regarding representation in this case prior to filing another motion,
(2) include in the motion the name and addresses of at least three attorneys he has
contacted, and (3) if available, attach the letters from the attorneys who declined
representation.
Moon later filed a motion to transfer his case to the Central District of Illinois
(Doc. 16). However, the only surviving claims in this case took place while Moon was
housed at Menard Correctional Center which is located within the federal judicial district
for the Southern District of Illinois. 28 U.S.C. § 93(c). Thus, his remaining claims are in the
proper district, and his motion to transfer is DENIED as moot.
Case 3:25-cv-01210-NJR Document 18 Filed 02/04/26 Page 7 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>

8
Disposition
For the reasons stated above, Count 1 shall proceed against Kevin Murray. Count
2 shall proceed against Kevin Murray and Jacob Guetersloh.
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Kevin Murray and Jacob Guetersloh: (1) Form
5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons) and (2) Form 6
(Waiver of Service of Summons). The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail these forms, a copy of
the 	Complaint, 	and 	this 	Memorandum 	and 	Order 	to 	each 	defendant’s 	place 	of
employment as identified by Moon. If a defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver of
Service of Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the date the forms were
sent, the Clerk shall take appropriate steps to effect formal service on that defendant, and
the Court will require that defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent
authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
If a defendant can no longer be found at the work address provided by Moon, the
employer shall furnish the Clerk with the defendant’s current work address, or, if not
known, defendant’s last-known address. This information shall be used only for sending
the forms as directed above or for formally effecting service. Any documentation of the
address shall be retained only by the Clerk. Address information shall not be maintained
in the court file or disclosed by the Clerk.
Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to
the Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(g).
Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 244, Defendants need only respond to the issues
stated in this Merit Review Order.
Case 3:25-cv-01210-NJR Document 18 Filed 02/04/26 Page 8 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>

9
Because Moon’s claims also involve his medical care, the Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to enter the Court’s standard HIPAA Qualified Protective Order.
If judgment is rendered against Moon, and the judgment includes the payment of
costs under Section 1915, he will be required to pay the full amount of the costs, regardless
of whether his application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(f)(2)(A).
Finally, Moon is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the
Clerk of Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court
will not independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not
later than 14 days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply
with this order will cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and may result
in dismissal of this action for want of prosecution. See F ED. R. C IV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 4, 2026
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01210-NJR Document 18 Filed 02/04/26 Page 9 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>

10
Notice to Plaintiff
The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the appropriate defendants of
your lawsuit and serve them with a copy of your Complaint. After service has been
achieved, the defendants will enter their appearance and file an Answer to your
Complaint. It will likely take at least 60 days from the date of this Order to receive the
defendants’ Answer, but it is entirely possible that it will take 90 days or more. When all
the defendants have filed Answers, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order containing
important information on deadlines, discovery, and procedures. Plaintiff is advised to
wait until counsel has appeared for the defendants before filing any motions, to give the
defendants notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before
defendants’ counsel has filed an appearance will generally be denied as premature.
Plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the Court at this time, unless specifically
directed to do so.
Case 3:25-cv-01210-NJR Document 18 Filed 02/04/26 Page 10 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>