Rico v. Knauer et al

Page 1 of 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MIGUEL RICO, 	)
Plaintiff,
v.
LOUIS BROWDER and SHANE SMITH,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 	20-cv-415-RJD
ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated within the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”),
filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. 	Doc. 12. 	He contends that Defendants violated
his First and Eighth Amendment rights at Big Muddy River Correctional Center (“Big Muddy”)
from July-August 2018 after he filed a complaint against Defendant Shane Smith for violating the
Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”). 	Id. 	Following the Court’s ruling on Defendants’
summary judgment motions, Plaintiff proceeds on the following claims:
Count One: 	First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants Smith and
Browder for taking adverse actions against Plaintiff after Plaintiff
brought a PREA complaint against Smith.
Count Two: 	Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim against
Defendants 	Smith 	and 	Browder 	for 	sexually 	harassing 	and
retaliating against Plaintiff.
Doc. 153. 	At a bench trial on March 23, 2026, Plaintiff and Defendants Smith and Browder
testified in person. 	Other than the parties’ testimonies, no evidence was admitted.
Case 3:20-cv-00415-RJD Document 221 Filed 03/25/26 Page 1 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 9
Plaintiff’s testimony
Plaintiff was housed at Big Muddy River Correctional Center from June-August 2018.
When he first arrived at Big Muddy, he was housed in Receiving. 	On June 22, 2018, Plaintiff
needed to use the toilet in his cell and decided to use a piece of cardboard to cover up a window
on the door. Plaintiff referred to the window as a “spit guard” and defined it as “the hole for the
door to look inside.” 	Covering the spit guard while toileting was a common practice among
inmates at Big Muddy. 	After Plaintiff covered up the spit guard and sat down on the toilet,
Defendant Smith came into his cell “to talk s*** to [Plaintiff].” 	Defendant Smith was “saying he
does not want to see none of the stuff hanging at the door or cover the door.” 	Plaintiff “started
screaming at him ‘don’t you see me using the toilet?’” 	Defendant Smith said “there’s nothing to
see here” in reference to Plaintiff’s genitals. 	Defendant Smith then left Plaintiff’s door open so
that other inmates could see him using the toilet. Plaintiff got up from the toilet and closed the
door. 	Subsequently, this incident will be referred to in this Order as “the toilet incident.”
Plaintiff received a ticket for covering up the spit guard.
The next day, Plaintiff made a PREA complaint. 	Plaintiff spoke with an investigator, Lt.
Clark, and believed that he was subsequently “not supposed to be near” Defendant Smith.
Plaintiff did not recall the dates of these events and needed to refresh his recollection with a
grievance that he wrote on July 6, 2018. 	At some point after the toilet incident, perhaps on July
4, 2018, Defendant Smith would not allow Plaintiff to use the phone and said “I know you called
PREA on me you little b****.” 	The following day, Plaintiff was not allowed to use the dayroom
or the gym. 	Defendant Smith said to him “you’re not coming out because you’re the one…you
called PREA on me and then the following day…[Plaintiff] wasn’t let out [] for day room or gym.”
At some point, Plaintiff was placed on suicide watch. 	His cell during the suicide watch
Case 3:20-cv-00415-RJD Document 221 Filed 03/25/26 Page 2 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 9
was also in Receiving. 	Defendant Smith delivered Plaintiff’s food tray and said that he put “spit
ranch” on Plaintiff’s tray. 	Plaintiff did not take the tray. 	On approximately ten other occasions,
Defendant Smith said that he put “spit ranch” or “sperm ranch” on Plaintiff’s food. 	Plaintiff
refused those trays and was hungry.
At some point, Plaintiff was moved from Receiving to Three House. 	He refused the
transfer and was then “walked to segregation.” 	Upon arriving in segregation, Officer Smith
performed his strip search. 	During the time Plaintiff lived in segregation, Officer Smith appeared
in his gallery while he was taking a shower and made a remark regarding Plaintiff’s genitals and
that Plaintiff was Mexican. 	On another occasion, Defendant Smith kicked or banged on
Plaintiff’s door.
After these events, Plaintiff never wants to speak out again if something happens to him in
prison.
Defendant Shane Smith’s testimony
Defendant Smith is currently employed as a program counselor at Big Muddy. 	He was
previously employed as a correctional officer at Big Muddy for 19 years. 	From June-August
2018, he worked the day shift in Receiving. 	Crisis watch cells for inmates who were at risk of
committing suicide were located in Receiving. 	As a correctional officer, Defendant Smith’s
primary responsibility was safety and security. 	He recalls that Plaintiff was on crisis watch one
time.
Defendant Smith explained how inmates in Receiving access the dayroom, gym, and yard.
First, an officer in the control room presses a button that partially unlocks the inmates’ doors.
Then, to open their doors, the inmates must push a button to move the bolt on the inside of their
door. 	If an inmate in Receiving could not access dayroom/yard/gym for disciplinary reasons or
Case 3:20-cv-00415-RJD Document 221 Filed 03/25/26 Page 3 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 4 of 9
because he was on crisis watch, then his door would not be initially unlocked when the control
room officer pressed the button to unlock the doors of the other inmates in Receiving who could
access the dayroom/yard/gym.
Defendant Smith would conduct a “tour” of the inmates in Receiving every thirty minutes
and watch for any potential suicide risks, manufacturing of contraband, or other prohibited activity.
Defendant Smith recalls seeing the obstruction in Plaintiff’s observation window as he performed
a tour in June 2018. 	Inmates at Big Muddy would occasionally place obstructions in their
observation windows, but when they did, they received either a warning or a citation. 	The
observation window is located in the cell door and is approximately four inches wide and 18 inches
high. 	It is covered with very strong mesh. 	Regardless of whether an inmate was using the toilet,
he could not place any obstruction to cover the observation window. 	Because Receiving
previously housed inmates in segregation, some of the observation windows also had a “spit guard”
made of Plexiglass that covered the window to prohibit inmates from throwing anything at
passersby.
When Defendant Smith noticed the obstruction in Plaintiff’s observation window, he
knocked and asked “is anyone in there” and heard someone make an inaudible statement.
Defendant Smith used a key to open the door to Plaintiff’s cell. 	The door opens out, away from
the cell. 	After opening the door approximately five to six inches, Defendant Smith removed the
obstruction; the cell was dark and he could see a silhouette of a person sitting on a toilet. 	Seeing
an inmate on the toilet felt uncomfortable and so Defendant Smith immediately shut the door. 	He
heard the click of the bolt when he shut the door. 	He returned to his desk (approximately 40 feet
away) to start writing a disciplinary report. 	Within 1-2 minutes, Defendant Smith heard the click
of a bolt from an inmate’s door and saw that Plaintiff was approaching his desk. 	Plaintiff began
Case 3:20-cv-00415-RJD Document 221 Filed 03/25/26 Page 4 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 5 of 9
to argue with Defendant Smith. 	Defendant Smith told Plaintiff that he was not comfortable with
Plaintiff standing at his desk while his head was down, as he was writing the ticket.
After Plaintiff made his PREA complaint, Defendant Smith was interviewed by Lt. Clark.
Defendant Smith was not aware of the PREA complaint until this interview. 	Defendant Smith
gave a statement in which he said that while working in Receiving, he warned every inmate
(including Plaintiff) multiple times against obstructing windows. 	Defendant Smith does not
remember if he continued working in the receiving unit after Plaintiff made his PREA complaint.
In Receiving, Defendant Smith gave lunch trays to inmates in crisis watch cells. 	The other
inmates in Receiving would leave the unit and eat their meals in Dietary. 	At times, Defendant
Smith helped distribute meal trays in segregation.
When asked if he had said “it is true what they say about Mexicans they do have little
[genitalia]” to Plaintiff, Defendant Smith replied “No I did not.” 	When asked if he had said
anything similar to Plaintiff, Defendant Smith replied “No I did not.” 	When asked if, prior to
Plaintiff making these allegations, he had ever heard Mexicans’ genitals described in such a way,
he said “No.” When asked if he ever instructed the control room officer to keep Plaintiff’s cell
locked while other inmates went to dayroom, yard, or gym, he said “no.” When asked if (to the
best of his knowledge) he ever banged or kicked on Plaintiff’s cell door, 	he said no. 	When asked
if it was possible that he banged on or kicked Plaintiff’s cell door, he said “the only time that we
would knock on a door is if we weren’t detecting movement” during an inmate count. 	When
asked if he had ever made an improper comment to Plaintiff in the shower, he said “No. Never.”
When asked if he had ever said anything to Plaintiff about “his food in any possible contamination
of any sort when you gave it to him,” he said “No. Never.” When asked if he had ever said anything
about contaminating or possible contamination to any inmate’s food, he said “No. Never.” When
Case 3:20-cv-00415-RJD Document 221 Filed 03/25/26 Page 5 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 6 of 9
asked “why not?”, he said “because it’s unprofessional and disgusting.” 	Defendant Smith has
never received a report about semen or spit on an inmate’s tray at Big Muddy. 	Defendant Smith
has never made a decision about an inmate’s cell placement. 	Defendant Smith does not recall
ever performing a strip search on Plaintiff; if he did, it was because he was working in restrictive
housing on the day Plaintiff was placed there.
Defendant Louis Browder
Defendant Browder worked for the IDOC from 1991-2019. 	From 2011-2019, he worked
as correctional lieutenant. 	PREA complaints against correctional officers were very common.
Inmates benefit from the safety and security provided by the act, but they could also use PREA
complaints as a means to move cells or get a different cellmate. 	Defendant Browder never tried
to intimidate inmates from making PREA complaints. When asked if it bothered him when inmates
filed PREA complaints against other officers, Defendant Browder said “no” because “it was just
the nature of the business.”
Defendant Browder was involved in passing lunch trays from June-August 2018.
Mealtime was very important to the inmates, and “if [the inmates] were happy we’re happy but I
add that for my whole career there was let’s say a gentleman’s agreement between staff and
inmates and there’s two things you don’t mess with you didn’t mess with their food and you didn’t
mess with their mail.” 	Defendant Browder never heard Defendant Smith say that he was going
to give semen or spit ranch to Plaintiff, or anything else that suggested he would contaminate
Plaintiff’s food. 	If Defendant Browder had ever heard about a correctional officer putting semen
on a lunch tray, it would have been a big deal. 	Defendant Browder recalls Plaintiff refusing his
lunch tray on one occasion, but does not remember if Plaintiff told him why he was refusing.
Findings of Fact
Case 3:20-cv-00415-RJD Document 221 Filed 03/25/26 Page 6 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 7 of 9
To reach a decision in this matter, the undersigned must determine whether Plaintiff or
Defendants are truthfully recalling the events that occurred at Big Muddy from June-August 2018.
No documentary or physical evidence was admitted; the undersigned only has the parties’
recollections of events that occurred nearly eight years ago to consider. 	Having judged the
demeanor of the three individuals and considering their testimonies, the Court finds Defendants to
be more credible than Plaintiff. 	Plaintiff reviewed his grievances during his testimony. 	At one
point, shortly after reviewing a grievance, Plaintiff was recounting the events following the toilet
incident and said “I asked him if he can let me go to the gym he said you’re not coming out because
you’re the one—you what I recall is that’s the one I’m I forget what I read but not coming out
because you called PREA on me.” 	It seemed that Plaintiff was not just refreshing his recollection
on a specific point by reading the grievance, but that he was relying upon it to give the substance
of his testimony.
In contrast, Defendants provided detailed accounts of the events involving Plaintiff and
apparently have distinct memories that contradict Plaintiff’s testimony. 	Importantly, the
undersigned believed them when they testified that they had never done or said things to any
inmate that Plaintiff claimed they did/said to him. 	Defendants straight-forwardly explained what
they could not remember after nearly eight years: where Defendant Smith was assigned after
Plaintiff made his complaint, whether Defendant Smith strip searched Plaintiff, and why Plaintiff
refused his lunch tray from Defendant Browder on one occasion.
The Court cannot fathom why Plaintiff would file and pursue this lawsuit regarding the
alleged events that (the undersigned believes) did not occur. 	One who had not seen or heard
Plaintiff give his testimony may be inclined to believe him simply because no apparent motive
exists for fabricating the allegations. 	Defense counsel spent an inordinate amount of time
Case 3:20-cv-00415-RJD Document 221 Filed 03/25/26 Page 7 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 8 of 9
discussing the toilet incident and suggested that Plaintiff made the PREA complaint as part of
some strategy for cell or prison placement, but the alluded theory was ill-defined.
Regardless, Plaintiff had the burden of proof, and the evidence consists of his word versus
Defendants’. Defendants were more credible than Plaintiff. 	Accordingly, the Court finds that
Defendant Smith did not (1) make comments about Plaintiff’s genitalia or ethnicity; (2) make
comments about contaminating Plaintiff’s food; (3) instruct the control officers to prevent Plaintiff
from accessing the dayroom, gym, or yard; (4) make any decisions about Plaintiff’s cell placement.
Similarly, the Court finds that Defendant Browder did not make a comment about Plaintiff’s lunch
tray or otherwise attempt to punish him for making the PREA complaint.
Conclusions of Law
To prevail on his First Amendment claim in Count I, Plaintiff must establish that (1) “he
engaged in protected First Amendment activity”; (2) “an adverse action was taken against him”;
and (3) the “protected conduct was at least a motivating factor of the adverse action.” Holleman v.
Zatecky, 951 F.3d 873, 878 (7th Cir. 2020) (citing Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546 (7th Cir.
2009). 	Complaints by inmates involving abuse by prison guards are considered First Amendment
activity. 	Bridges, 557 F.3d at 552. 	Here, Plaintiff engaged in protected First Amendment
activity by making the PREA complaint. 	However, he has not proven that Defendants took
adverse action against him. 	Defendants are entitled to judgment in their favor on Count I.
To prevail on his Eighth Amendment claim in Count II, Plaintiff must establish that
Defendants inflicted cruel and unusual punishment upon him. 	Verbal harassment by prison
guards may “rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment” if the harassment is sufficiently
serious and harmful. 	Beal v. Foster, 803 F.3d 356, 358-59 (7th Cir. 2015). 	The undersigned
need not determine whether the comments allegedly made by Defendants were sufficiently serious
Case 3:20-cv-00415-RJD Document 221 Filed 03/25/26 Page 8 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 9 of 9
to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation because the undersigned does not believe Defendants
made them. 	Nor does the undersigned believe Defendant Smith prevented Plaintiff from going
to yard, dayroom, or gym. 	Defendants are entitled to judgment in their favor on Count II.
Conclusion
Having heard and observed testimony by Plaintiff and Defendants, the Court finds in favor
of Defendants and against Plaintiff on Count I and II. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to enter
judgment in Defendants’ favor and dismiss this matter with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 25, 2026
s/ 	Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:20-cv-00415-RJD Document 221 Filed 03/25/26 Page 9 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>