Pernell v. Ross

Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
AARON PERNELL,
also known as Ayra Pernell,
#17601-035,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER ROSS,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-01126-SPM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MCGLYNN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Pernell1 is an inmate in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and currently
incarcerated Federal Correctional Institution. Plaintiff asserts that while she was at USP Marion
she was sexually assaulted and raped by Defendant Officer Ross. Plaintiff alleges diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a) because she and Defendant are citizens of different
states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Doc. 1, p. 1-2, 3). This case is now before
the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the
Court to screen and dismiss any portion that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim
for relief, or requests money damages from an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff states that while she was at USP Marion she was sexually harassed for months by
Officer Ross. (Doc. 1, p. 2). According to Plaintiff, Ross would follow Plaintiff to her cell and
make sexually suggestive remarks about Plaintiff’s body and attempt to touch Plaintiff. Plaintiff
1 Plaintiff identifies herself as a transgender female, who goes by the name Arya Pernell. (Doc. 1, p. 1-2).
Case 3:25-cv-01126-SPM Document 17 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 5
also asserts that Ross would repeatedly call Plaintiff to his office and threaten Plaintiff with the
loss of privileges if Plaintiff did not allow him to touch her. On several occasions, Plaintiff lost
certain privileges after she refused Ross’s “sexual advances.” In January, February, and March
2024, Ross repeatedly coerced Plaintiff into allowing him to tough her breasts, groin, thighs and
buttocks. On March 2, 2024, Ross groped Plaintiff and then raped her. Plaintiff reported the rape
through the Bureau of Prison’s Administrative Remedy Program. (Id.). Because of Ross’s sexual
harassment and rape, Plaintiff suffers from severe mental distress, insomnia, fear, humiliation,
depression, and anxiety. (Id. at p. 3).
DISCUSSION
Based on the allegations in the Complaint and Plaintiff’s description of her claims, the
Court designates the following counts in this pro se action:
Count 1: 	State law intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against
Ross.
Count 2: 	State law assault claim against Ross.
Count 3: 	State law battery claim against Ross.
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 Twombly2 pleading standard.
As mentioned, Plaintiff has invoked the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1, p. 1); 28
U.S.C. §1332(a)(1). Construing the Complaint liberally, Plaintiff appears to be asserting that she
is a citizen of Colorado, where she is currently incarcerated, and that Defendant Ross is a citizen
of Illinois. Plaintiff requests $700,000 in compensatory damages, in addition to punitive damages.
2 See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Case 3:25-cv-01126-SPM Document 17 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 5
The Court takes these assertions as true at the pleading stage, and they are enough to state a basis
for the court to exercise diversity jurisdiction.
The Court must now consider whether the Complaint states a claim for relief. Based on the
allegations that Plaintiff was sexually harassed and assaulted for months by Defendant Ross and
eventually raped on March 2, 2024, Plaintiff has stated claims under Illinois state law for
intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, and battery. Both Counts 1, 2, and 3 will
proceed against Defendant Ross. See Carr. Village of Richmond, 96 C 50203, 1996 WL 663921,
at *6-7 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (discussing the elements of assault, battery, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress under Illinois law).
DISPOSITION
Pursuant to Section 1915A, the Complaint survives preliminary review. COUNTS 1, 2,
and 3 will proceed against Defendant Officer Ross.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to complete, on Plaintiff’s behalf, a summons and form
USM-285 for service of process on Defendant Officer Ross; the Clerk shall issue the completed
summons. The United States Marshals SHALL serve Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(e). All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States, and the Clerk shall
provide all necessary materials and copies to the United States Marshals Service.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i), the Clerk shall (1) personally deliver to
or send by registered or certified mail addressed to the civil-process clerk at the office of the United
States Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois a copy of the summons, the Complaint, and
this Memorandum and Order; and (2) send by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General
of the United States at Washington, D.C., a copy of the summons, the Complaint, and this
Memorandum and Order.
Defendant is ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the
Case 3:25-cv-01126-SPM Document 17 Filed 12/12/25 Page 3 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 4 of 5
Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Pursuant to
Administrative Order No. 244, Defendant needs only to respond to the issues stated in this
Merit Review Order.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that if judgment is rendered against her and the judgment includes
the payment of costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, she will be required to pay the full amount of the
costs, even though her application to proceed without payment of fees was granted. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(f)(2)(A).
Plaintiff is further ADVISED that she is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk
of Court and the opposing parties informed of any change in her address; the Court will not
independently investigate her 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. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 12, 2025
s/Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01126-SPM Document 17 Filed 12/12/25 Page 4 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 5 of 5
NOTICE TO P LAINTIFF
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 the complaint. It will likely take at least 60 days from
the date of this Order to receive the defendants’ Answers, but it is entirely possible that it will take
90 days or more. When all of 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 otherwise directed by the Court.
Case 3:25-cv-01126-SPM Document 17 Filed 12/12/25 Page 5 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>