Lattimore et al v. Wills et al

Page 1 of 8
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MILTON LATTIMORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANTHONY WILLS, LIEUTENANT
WEHRENBERG, and LIEUTENANT S.
EBERS,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:25-cv-02096-GCS
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
SISON, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Milton Lattimore, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”),
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. 1 In the Complaint, Lattimore alleges that Defendants used excessive force against
him in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Since the filing of his original Complaint, Lattimore has filed two motions for leave
to file an amended pleading. (Doc. 11, 14). Lattimore failed to file a proposed amended
pleading. Instead, he merely sought to add additional information, including information
regarding his mental health and his attempts at exhausting his claims. Because the Court
1 	Lattimore initially filed his Complaint on behalf of himself and his cellmate,
Angelo Bennett. (Doc. 1). Bennett was directed to inform the Court whether he wished to
continue with the proposed group litigation, but he failed to respond. (Doc. 9, 16).
Bennett’s claims were ultimately dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 16).
Case 3:25-cv-02096-GCS Document 19 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 8
does not accept piecemeal amendments to the Complaint, his requests to amend are
DENIED.
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.2 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 requests monetary damages from a defendant who by law is
immune from such relief must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
THE COMPLAINT
On November 7, 2024, tactical team members at Menard conducted a shakedown
of the West Cellhouse, including Lattimore’s cell. (Doc. 1, p. 2). Lattimore alleges that he
shared a cell with Angelo Bennett and during the shakedown, multiple officers entered
his cell while they slept. Id. The officers yelled at them to get up, and Lattimore stood up.
Id. At first, he did not understand what was going on. The officers told him to approach
and cuff-up. Lattimore asked if he could obtain his front-cuff permit because he could not
put his arms behind his back. Id. at p. 3. The officers denied his request and again directed
him to approach to be cuffed. Id. Lattimore asked for medical staff and asked the officers
to examine his arm. Id.
2 	The Court has jurisdiction to screen the Complaint due to Plaintiff’s consent to the
full jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge (Doc. 10), and the limited consent to the exercise of
Magistrate Judge jurisdiction as set forth in the Memoranda of Understanding between
the IDOC, the medical providers, and this Court.
Case 3:25-cv-02096-GCS Document 19 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 8
In response, one officer sprayed Lattimore in the face with mace. (Doc. 1, p. 3). The
officer then ran into the cell, wrestled Lattimore to the ground, and forced his arms
behind his back. Id. Lattimore felt a pop and his arm went numb and hot. Id. Lattimore
screamed about the pain in his arm, but the officers showed no sympathy. Id. They took
him to the healthcare unit where a nurse washed his face, but the officers rushed him out
of the unit before his arm could be examined. Id. He was charged with disobeying a direct
order and placed in segregation. Although he requested medical care from officers, they
would not help him. Id. He wrote numerous letters to the healthcare unit but never
received care. Id.
Lattimore alleges that Wehrenberg and Ebers used excessive force against him
with they sprayed him with mace, slammed him to the floor, and wrestled his arms
behind his back. (Doc. 1, p. 4). An attached affidavit from Lattimore’s cellmate, Angelo
Bennett, attributes the use of force only to Ebers. Id. at p. 10-11. Disciplinary report
records written by Ebers also indicate that he gave the orders to be handcuffed and
ultimately sprayed Lattimore with pepper spray. Id. at p. 25, 32.
PRELIMINARY D ISMISSALS
Although Lattimore identifies Warden Anthony Wills as a defendant in the case
caption, he fails to include any allegations against Wills in his statement of the claim.
Lattimore merely alleges that Wills is legally responsible for the daily operations at
Menard, but he cannot be liable for the acts of his employees because there is no respondeat
superior (or supervisory) liability under Section 1983. See Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d
724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001). And there are no allegations suggesting that Wills was personally
Case 3:25-cv-02096-GCS Document 19 Filed 02/25/26 Page 3 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 4 of 8
involved in the use of force alleged in this case. Thus, any claim against Anthony Wills is
DISMISSED without prejudice.
D ISCUSSION
Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates the following
count:
Count 1: 	Eighth 	Amendment 	excessive 	force 	claim 	against
Wehrenberg 	and 	Ebers 	for 	their 	use 	of 	force 	against
Lattimore.
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.3
In an excessive force case, the core requirement “is that [the 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).
Lattimore alleges that officers used excessive force when they sprayed him in the face
with mace, wrestled him to the ground, and pulled his arms behind his back, injuring his
3 	This includes any claim against the defendants in their official capacities. See, e.g.,
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (noting that 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”). Further, to the extent that Lattimore seeks a
preliminary injunction, he has not filed a separate motion nor set out how he meets the
standard for issuing an injunction. His request for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.
Case 3:25-cv-02096-GCS Document 19 Filed 02/25/26 Page 4 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 5 of 8
arm. He alleges that he was not aggressive or threatening at the time that the officers used
force. Although Lattimore alleges in conclusory fashion that both Wehrenberg and Ebers
used force, in his statement of claim he only attributes the use of force to one officer. (Doc.
1, p. 2-3). His attached exhibits indicate that the officer was Ebers. Id. at p. 10-11, 25, 32.
Thus, Count 1 shall proceed against Lieutenant Ebers.
But Lattimore fails to allege that Wehrenberg was personally involved in the use
of force. See Matz v. Klotka, 769 F.3d 517, 528 (7th Cir. 2014). See also Minix v. Canarecci, 597
F.3d 824, 833 (7th Cir. 2010) (stating that “individual liability under [Section] 1983
requires ‘personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation’”). It is not clear
what role Wehrenberg played in the use of force on November 7. Lattimore only alleges
that “one of the tactical officers” used mace, wrestled him to the ground, and forced his
arms behind his back. (Doc. 1, p. 2-3). Those actions he later attributes in his exhibits to
Ebers. There are no allegations to put Wehrenberg on notice as to what role he allegedly
played in the incident. A complaint must associate specific defendants with specific
claims, so that defendants are put on notice of the claims brought against them and they
can properly answer the complaint. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). Because Lattimore fails to allege how Wehrenberg participated in the use of force,
his claim against Wehrenberg is DISMISSED without prejudice.
M OTIONS FOR COUNSEL
Lattimore recently filed a motion requesting counsel to help him with his claims.
(Doc. 12). Lattimore indicates that no attorney has agreed to take his case, and he needs
counsel because he cannot read, write, or spell. But given the early stages of the litigation
Case 3:25-cv-02096-GCS Document 19 Filed 02/25/26 Page 5 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 6 of 8
process, it is difficult to accurately evaluate the need for the assistance of counsel. See, e.g.,
Kadamovas v. Stevens, 706 F.3d 843, 845 (7th Cir. 2013) (stating that “until the defendants
respond to the complaint, the plaintiff’s need for assistance of counsel . . . cannot be
gauged.”). 4 There is nothing currently pending that would require counsel. Once
Defendant has filed an Answer, the Court will enter a scheduling order explaining the
next steps in the litigation process. If Lattimore continues to experience difficulties in
litigating his case, he may resubmit another request for counsel. Currently, counsel is not
needed, and his motion is DENIED.
D ISPOSITION
For the reasons stated above, Count 1 shall proceed against Lieutenant Ebers. All
claims against Wehrenberg and Anthony Wills are DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Lieutenant S. Ebers: (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 the defendant’s place of employment as identified by
Lattimore. If 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 the defendant, and the Court will require the
4 	In evaluating the motion for counsel, the Court applies the factors discussed in
Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007), and related authority.
Case 3:25-cv-02096-GCS Document 19 Filed 02/25/26 Page 6 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 7 of 8
defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
If the defendant can no longer be found at the work address provided by
Lattimore, 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.
Defendant is 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, Defendant need only respond to the issues
stated in this Merit Review Order.
If judgment is rendered against Lattimore, 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, Lattimore 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 FED. R. C IV. P ROC. 41(b).
Case 3:25-cv-02096-GCS Document 19 Filed 02/25/26 Page 7 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 8 of 8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 25, 2026.
__________________________________
GILBERT C. SISON
United States Magistrate Judge
N OTICE 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.
Digitally signed by
Judge Sison
Date: 2026.02.25
12:35:09 -06'00'
Case 3:25-cv-02096-GCS Document 19 Filed 02/25/26 Page 8 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>