McCray v. Villazon-Sanchez et al

Page 1 of 9
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LeDARRION McCRAY, #Y33420,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOSE A. VILLAZON-SANCHEZ,
JAMES WIZKAMP,
ROBERT O’LEARY,
and NATHAN WALKER,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:25-cv-01282-GCS
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
SISON, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff LeDarrion McCray, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of
(“IDOC”) 	and currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center, brings this action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff claims that prison officials tampered with his
food and used excessive force against him at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, in
violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. He seeks money damages. Id.
The Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, which requires screening of prisoner complaints and dismissal or any portion
that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money
damages from an immune defendant.1 Id. The factual allegations are liberally construed
at this stage. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Service, 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
1 	The Court has jurisdiction to screen the Complaint, due to Plaintiff’s consent to the
full jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge (Doc. 7) and the limited consent by the IDOC to the
Case 3:25-cv-01282-GCS Document 14 Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 9
THE COMPLAINT
The Complaint and exhibits set forth the following allegations (Doc. 1, p. 6-7, 11,
13-49): Officer Villazon-Sanchez repeatedly spit into Plaintiff’s food and denied his
requests for replacement meal trays in 2024. Plaintiff reported the food contamination to
Officer Wizkamp, Sergeant Walker, and Lieutenant O’Leary, but they denied or
disregarded his requests for replacement meal trays. Plaintiff missed multiple meals
because he would not eat the contaminated food. Id.
Desperate to get the staff’s attention, Plaintiff set a small fire in his cell’s food slot
door on December 30, 2024. Officer Villazon-Sanchez responded by emptying an entire
fire extinguisher into Plaintiff’s cell, even though the fire was limited to the food slot box.
Officer Wizkamp threatened to spray Plaintiff with mace, if he did not extend his hands
through the food slot door to cuff up. Plaintiff protested because the food slot door was
still hot from the fire. When Officer Wizkamp again threatened to spray him, Plaintiff
extended his hands through the food slot door as ordered. Officer Villazon-Sanchez
Intentionally held Plaintiff’s hands and arms against the hot door and burned him. When
Plaintiff screamed out in pain, the officer said, “[Y]ou shouldn’t have started the fire you
dumb ass.” Id. at 7. Sergeant Walker told Officer Villazon-Sanchez to stop, and he did.
Plaintiff was then taken to the prison’s health care unit for treatment of his injuries. Id.
exercise 	of 	Magistrate 	Judge 	jurisdiction 	as 	set 	forth 	in 	the 	Memorandum 	of
Understanding between this Court and the IDOC.
Case 3:25-cv-01282-GCS Document 14 Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 9
Despite Plaintiff’s repeated complaints, Defendants would not deliver him
uncontaminated meal trays, move him away from Officer Villazon-Sanchez, or remove
Officer Villazon-Sanchez from his cellhouse. Id.
D ISCUSSION
The Court designates the following enumerated counts in the pro se Complaint:
Count 1: 	Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Villazon-Sanchez for
repeatedly spitting into Plaintiff’s food and refusing to give him a
replacement meal tray in or around December 2024.
Count 2: 	Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Wizkamp, Walker,
and O’Leary for denying or disregarding Plaintiff’s request for
uncontaminated meal trays after learning that Defendant Villazon-
Sanchez spit into his food in or around December 2024.
Count 3: 	Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Villazon-Sanchez for
emptying an entire fire extinguisher into Plaintiff’s cell when the
food slot box was on fire and then holding his hands and arms
against the hot food slot door to burn him on or around December
30, 2024.
Count 4: 	Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Wizkamp, Walker,
and O’Leary for failing to intervene and protect Plaintiff from this
use of unauthorized force by Defendant Villazon-Sanchez on or
around December 30, 2024.
Any claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed herein is considered
dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under Twombly. 2
All Eighth Amendment claims consist of an objective and a subjective component.
See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-834 (1994). The objective component requires a
2 	See, e.g., Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (noting that an action
fails to state a claim for relief if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.”).
Case 3:25-cv-01282-GCS Document 14 Filed 11/20/25 Page 3 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 4 of 9
plaintiff to demonstrate that he was denied the “minimal civilized measure of life’s
necessities,” including food, shelter, safety, or medical care. Id. The subjective component
requires the plaintiff to show that each defendant responded to the deprivation with
deliberate indifference, which occurs when a defendant knew of and disregarded an
excessive risk to the inmate’s health or safety. Id.
Counts 	1 	and 	2 	satisfy 	both 	components 	of 	this 	claim 	at 	screening. 	The
Constitution requires that “prison officials provide inmates with nutritionally adequate
food that is prepared and served under conditions which do not present an immediate
danger to the health and well-being of the inmates who consume it.” Smith v. Dart, 803
F.3d 304, 312 (7th Cir. 2015) (citation and quotations omitted); Gillis v. Litscher, 468 F.3d
488, 493 (7th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff alleges that Officer Villazon-Sanchez contaminated his
food by spitting into it on numerous occasions, and all defendants refused to provide
Plaintiff with replacement meal trays. Plaintiff was thus forced to choose between
consuming contaminated food or skipping meals altogether. Count 1 survives screening
against Defendant Villazon-Sanchez, and Count 2 survives review against Defendants
Wizkamp, Walker, and O’Leary. See, e.g., LaCroix v. Neal, Cause No. 3:23-CV-364-DRL-
MGG, 2023 WL 4930126, at *2 (N.D. Ind. July 31, 2023) (noting that plaintiff articulated
Eighth Amendment claim against prison official who knowingly allowed inmates to spit
in his food and refused to provide new food tray); Metras v. Pollard, No. 07-C-336, 2007
WL 1461296, at *3 (E.D. Wisc. May 16, 2007) (noting that plaintiff stated Eighth
Amendment claim against staff for spitting in his food because “spittal-contaminated
Case 3:25-cv-01282-GCS Document 14 Filed 11/20/25 Page 4 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 5 of 9
food, even if it is not nutritionally compromised, can raise serious sanitary and human
decency concerns.”).
Count 3 also satisfies the objective and subjective components of an Eighth
Amendment claim. The Eighth Amendment protects inmates from the unauthorized use
of force. The “core requirement” for this claim is that a defendant “used force not in a
good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, but maliciously and sadistically to
cause harm.” Hendrickson v. Cooper, 589 F.3d 887, 890 (7th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
When considering whether an officer’s use of force was legitimate, courts consider the
need for application of force, the amount of force used, and the extent of the injury
suffered by the inmate. Id. The allegations suggest that Officer Villazon-Sanchez used
unnecessary force when responding to the fire in Plaintiff’s cell, by emptying an entire
fire extinguisher into the cell when the fire was limited to the food slot box and/or
holding Plaintiff’s hands and arms against the hot food slot door when cuffing him.
Count 3 survives screening against Officer Villazon-Sanchez as an excessive force claim.
Count 4 survives review against Officer Wizkamp for failing to protect Plaintiff
from the use of excessive force by Officer Villazon-Sanchez. Officials who “have a realistic
opportunity to step forward and prevent a fellow officer from violating a plaintiff’s rights
through the use of excessive force but fail to do so” may be liable under § 1983. Miller v.
Smith, 220 F.3d 491, 495 (7th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff alleges that Officer Wizkamp was present
when Officer Villazon-Sanchez used excessive force against him, and the officer
facilitated its use. Officer Wizkamp threatened to spray Plaintiff with mace if he did not
place his hands in the hot food slot door and then watched as Officer Villazon-Sanchez
Case 3:25-cv-01282-GCS Document 14 Filed 11/20/25 Page 5 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 6 of 9
held his hands and arms against the hot door and burned him. Count 4 will proceed
against Officer Wizkamp.
However, this claim will be dismissed without prejudice against Sergeant Walker
and Lieutenant O’Leary. Plaintiff alleges that when Sergeant Walker observed Officer
Villazon-Sanchez mistreat him, the sergeant ordered Officer Villazon-Sanchez to stop,
and he complied. Plaintiff makes no allegation that Lieutenant O’Leary was aware of or
present during the incident on December 30, 2024. Count 4 will be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim against both these defendants.
PENDING MOTION
Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 12) is DENIED
without prejudice. An indigent plaintiff seeking representation by court-recruited
counsel must demonstrate: (a) reasonable efforts to locate counsel on his own; and (b) an
inability to litigate the matter without representation. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654
(7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff has demonstrated only minimal efforts to find an attorney, by
submitting one letter and two postage payment authorizations as proof of his efforts to
obtain counsel. He should continue trying to contact attorneys about representation by
phone, email, or mail. Plaintiff should also provide documentation of his ongoing efforts
when filing a new motion. For now, the Court finds that Plaintiff appears competent to
litigate this matter pro se. The Complaint survives screening on four straightforward
claims arising under the Eighth Amendment. There is nothing for him to do to move this
case forward until the defendants are served (or waive service) and answer. The Court
will then enter a Scheduling and Discovery Order with detailed instructions and
Case 3:25-cv-01282-GCS Document 14 Filed 11/20/25 Page 6 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 7 of 9
deadlines for litigation. If litigation becomes too difficult at a later stage, Plaintiff may file
a new motion.
D ISPOSITION
IT IS ORDERED that the Complaint (Doc. 1) survives screening under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, and the following claims will proceed against the below-listed defendants:
• 	COUNTS 	1 	and 	3 	against 	JOSE 	A. 	VILLAZON-SANCHEZ, 	in 	an
individual capacity;
• 	COUNT 2 	against 	JAMES 	WIZKAMP, 	NATHAN 	WALKER, 	and
ROBERT O’LEARY, in their individual capacities; and
• 	COUNT 4 against JAMES WIZKAMP, in an individual capacity.
These claims are dismissed against all other defendants without prejudice for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
As for Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4, the Clerk of Court shall prepare for ALL
DEFENDANTS: (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 (Doc. 1), and this Memorandum and Order to
each Defendant’s place of employment as identified by Plaintiff. 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 the Defendant to pay the full costs
of formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Case 3:25-cv-01282-GCS Document 14 Filed 11/20/25 Page 7 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 8 of 9
If a Defendant can no longer be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff,
the employer shall furnish the Clerk with that 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. § 1997e(g).
Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 244 and Local Rule 8.2, Defendants should only
respond to the issues stated in this Merits Review Order.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to inform the Clerk
of 	Court 	and 	each 	opposing 	party 	of 	any 	address 	changes; 	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 FED. R. C IV. PROC. 41(b).
Because one or more claims involves allegations of injuries requiring medical
treatment, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter the standard qualified protective
order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
Case 3:25-cv-01282-GCS Document 14 Filed 11/20/25 Page 8 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 9 of 9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 20, 2025.
__________________________________
GILBERT C. SISON
United States Magistrate Judge
N OTICE
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
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, in order to
give 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.
Gilbert C
Sison Digitally signed by Gilbert C Sison
Date: 2025.11.20 13:55:57 -06'00'
Case 3:25-cv-01282-GCS Document 14 Filed 11/20/25 Page 9 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>