Rose v. Light et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SEAN ROSE, R54602, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 23-cv-01027-SMY
)
DENISE LIGHT, 	)
MONICA SHEETS, 	)
ANTHONY D. WILLS, 	)
KENDRA SIEP, and 	)
FRANK LAWRENCE, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, Chief District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Sean Rose’s Motion for Leave to File Fifth
Amended Complaint (Doc. 106). 	Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the operative Complaint to
identify defendants by name, clarify claims, and conform his pleadings to the applicable legal
standards. Id. Defendants oppose the motion. (Doc. 110). For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s
request for leave to file the Fifth Amended Complaint is GRANTED.
Background
Plaintiff is an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections and brings this action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional deprivations stemming from his alleged sexual abuse and
assault by two female officers at Menard Correctional Center. 	The following claims survived
screening of the Second Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A:
Count 1: 	Eighth Amendment claim against Denise Light for sexually assaulting,
abusing, 	and 	harassing 	Plaintiff 	in 	Menard’s 	MSU 	from 	2018 	to
February 19, 2022.
Count 2: 	Eighth Amendment claim against Monica Sheets for sexually assaulting,
Case 3:23-cv-01027-SMY Document 122 Filed 03/25/26 Page 1 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
abusing, and harassing Plaintiff in the MSU from February 2021 until
February 19, 2022.
Count 3: 	Eighth Amendment claim against Anthony Wills, Kendra Siep, and Frank
Lawrence for failing to protect Plaintiff from a serious risk of bodily harm
by Officers Light and Sheets, when they created or enforced policies that
transferred staff members with a history of sexual misconduct to Menard’s
MSU and then turned a blind eye or covered up ongoing misconduct.
(Docs. 27, 30, and 49).
The Court dismissed five other claims and seven defendants without prejudice. (Doc. 30).
All defendants except Monica Sheets answered, and the Court entered an Initial Scheduling Order
on December 4, 2024, setting a deadline for filing a motion for leave to amend on or before
January 16, 2025. 	(Doc. 63). 	Following several attempts to file an amended complaint,1
(see Docs. 66 and 68), Plaintiff was assigned counsel who filed the pending Motion for Leave to
File Fifth Amended Complaint on his behalf. (Doc. 106).
Motion for Leave to Amend
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), the Court grants leave to amend when
justice so requires. Here, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint that clarifies his
claims, more precisely states facts, conforms the pleadings to the applicable legal standards, and
conforms his complaint to discovery and other pleadings filed to date. 	Defendants oppose the
motion on grounds of undue delay in seeking leave to amend and prejudice arising from the time
it takes to prepare and file new answers and an amended summary judgment motion. (Doc. 110).
The Court finds these arguments unpersuasive.
Plaintiff caused no undue delay. He filed two amended complaints before the deadline set
1 The Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 27) survived screening on May 2, 2024 and now serves as the operative
complaint. See Doc. 30. Plaintiff filed and withdrew a proposed Third Amended Complaint (Docs. 66, 66-1) and then
filed a proposed Fourth Amended Complaint (Docs. 68, 68-1) before the Court terminated his Motion for Leave to
Amend and assigned him counsel. (Doc. 95).
Case 3:23-cv-01027-SMY Document 122 Filed 03/25/26 Page 2 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
forth in the Initial Scheduling Order (Doc. 63). While his second motion for leave to amend was
pending, Defendants requested and received two extensions of time to move for summary
judgment on the issue of exhaustion and ultimately filed their motion for summary judgment on
March 28, 2025 (Doc. 80). Plaintiff requested counsel on April 7, 2025 (Doc. 85), and the Court
granted the request, assigned counsel, and terminated the pending motion to amend. (Doc. 95).
Plaintiff’s attorney timely appeared on July 16, 2025 (Doc. 103) and promptly moved to amend
August 14, 2025 (Doc. 106).
Moreover, 	Defendants 	will 	suffer 	no 	prejudice from 	an 	amendment. 	The Court
contemplated an amendment when preparing the Initial Scheduling Order and also contemplated
that an amendment would necessitate additional time for Defendants to file answers and prepare
motions for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion, if raised as an affirmative defense in
their answers to the amended complaint. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Fifth Amended
Complaint (Doc. 106) is GRANTED. 	Defendants will be allowed ample time to answer and
amend their summary judgment motion.
Section 1915A Review
The Fifth Amended Complaint (Doc. 106-1) is subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
which requires the Court to screen the Complaint and dismiss any portion that is legally frivolous
or malicious, fails to state a claim, or requests money damages from an immune defendant.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b).
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Fifth Amended Complaint: While housed
in Menard Correctional Center’s Medium Security Unit (MSU), Plaintiff was sexually assaulted,
abused, and harassed by two female officers, named Denise Light and Monica Sheets. Id. at ¶ 3.
The assaults were not isolated incidents. Id. at ¶ 4. They occurred repeatedly over time as to both
Case 3:23-cv-01027-SMY Document 122 Filed 03/25/26 Page 3 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

4
officers. Id.
Officer Light forced Plaintiff to engage in unwanted oral and vaginal sexual intercourse
and other sexual touching from June 2019 until February 19, 2022. Id. at ¶¶ 20-21. As an officer,
Light had the ability to influence Plaintiff’s cell placement, job assignments, and privileges. Id. at
¶ 22. She used this power over Plaintiff to coerce him into performing sexual acts with her, while
making him aware that she was also having sexual contact with other inmates. Id. at ¶¶ 22, 24. In
addition, she coerced him to commit violent acts against other inmates on her behalf. Id. at ¶ 23.
Officer Monica Sheets also sexually assaulted, abused, and harassed Plaintiff from
February 2021 until February 19, 2022. 	Id. at ¶¶ 25, 27. 	Plaintiff learned this officer was
transferred to Menard’s MSU from the General Division while she was under investigation for
improper sexual contact with inmates. Id. at ¶ 26. Like Officer Light, Sheets had the ability to
influence Plaintiff’s cell placement, job assignments, and privileges. Id. at ¶ 29. Sheets coerced
Plaintiff into performing oral and vaginal sex. Id. at ¶ 28. Sheets also provided Plaintiff tangible
gifts, engaged in verbal contact with his mother, and fostered a relationship with her to control
Plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 31. Plaintiff’s sexual contact with both defendants was nonconsensual. Id. at ¶
32.
The assaults were facilitated by Menard’s policy that allows corrections officers under
investigation for sexual misconduct committed in Menard’s General Division to transfer to the
MSU and continue working (Transfer Policy). Id. at ¶¶ 5, 33. The Transfer Policy did not restrict
officers under investigation from interacting with inmates. 	Id. at ¶ 34. 	The policy included no
steps to protect inmates in Menard’s MSU from sexual advances by corrections officers who were
under investigation. Id. at ¶ 35. There were no surveillance cameras to deter officers from having
sexual contact with inmates in the MSU. Id. at ¶ 36.
Case 3:23-cv-01027-SMY Document 122 Filed 03/25/26 Page 4 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

5
At 	all 	times, 	Warden 	Anthony 	Wills, 	Assistant 	Warden 	Frank 	Lawrence, 	and
Superintendent Kendra Siep were aware that Officers Light and Sheets were under investigation
for sexual misconduct with inmates in the General Division and that they were both transferred to
the MSU pending the investigation. Id. at ¶ 37. They were also aware of the Transfer Policy and
knew that it did not restrict officers under investigation for sexual misconduct from having contact
with inmates in the MSU and that the MSU had no surveillance cameras to deter corrections
officers from engaging in sexual contact with inmates. Id. at ¶¶ 38-39. Wills, Lawrence, and Siep
nevertheless enforced the Transfer Policy without taking steps to protect MSU inmates and turned
a blind eye to the resulting sexual abuse. Id. at ¶¶ 40-41.
Superintendent Siep admitted having actual knowledge of the investigation into allegations
of sexual misconduct against Officers Light and Sheets no later than January 2020. Id. at ¶ 42.
Despite her knowledge of the investigation and the serious risk both officers posed to inmates in
the MSU, Siep continued to enforce the Transfer Policy without taking steps to protect Plaintiff
from sexual abuse by Officers Light and Sheets. Id. at ¶ 43.
On February 19, 2022, a tip was called in from an outside facility, and an investigation
commenced. Id. at ¶ 44. The investigation substantiated allegations that a violation of the Prison
Rape Elimination Act (PREA) occurred involving Plaintiff. Id. Following commencement of the
investigation, Plaintiff transferred out of Menard. Id. at ¶ 45.
Discussion
Based on Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court designates the following claims in the Fifth
Amended Complaint:
Count 1: 	Eighth Amendment claim against Officer Light for nonconsensual sexual
assault, abuse, and harassment of Plaintiff in the MSU from June 2019 until
February 19, 2022.
Case 3:23-cv-01027-SMY Document 122 Filed 03/25/26 Page 5 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

6
Count 2: 	Eighth Amendment claim against Officer Sheets for nonconsensual sexual
assault, abuse, and harassment of Plaintiff in the MSU from February 2021
until February 19, 2022.
Count 3: 	Eighth Amendment claim against Warden Wills for failing to protect
Plaintiff from a serious risk of bodily harm posed by Officers Light and
Sheets when he enforced the Transfer Policy in the MSU and then turned a
blind eye to ongoing misconduct by Officers Lights and Sheets while they
were both under investigation for sexual misconduct involving inmates in
the General Division.
Count 4: 	Eighth Amendment claim against MSU Superintendent Siep for failing to
protect Plaintiff from a serious risk of bodily harm posed by Officers Light
and Sheets when she enforced the Transfer Policy in the MSU and then
turned a blind eye to ongoing sexual misconduct by Officers Lights and
Sheets when she knew both officers were both under investigation for
sexual misconduct involving inmates in the General Division.
Count 5: 	Eighth Amendment claim against Assistant Warden Frank Lawrence for
failing to protect Plaintiff from a serious risk of bodily harm posed by
Officers Light and Sheets when he enforced the Transfer Policy in the MSU
and then turned a blind eye to ongoing misconduct by Officers Lights and
Sheets while they were both under investigation for sexual misconduct
involving inmates in the General Division.
(Doc. 106-1). 	Any other claim mentioned in the Fifth Amended Complaint but not addressed
herein is considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (action fails to state a claim if it does not plead “enough facts
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”).
The Court previously noted the applicable legal standard for these Eighth Amendment
claims. (See Doc. 30). All five claims survive screening under the Eighth Amendment standard
(Doc. 30, pp. 5-6). Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 will receive further review against the defendants listed
in connection with each claim above.
Disposition
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Fifth Amended Complaint (Doc. 106) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to file the Fifth Amended Complaint (Doc. 106-1) in CM/ECF instanter.
Case 3:23-cv-01027-SMY Document 122 Filed 03/25/26 Page 6 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

7
ALL DEFENDANTS, except Monica Sheets, have filed waivers of service, entered an
appearance, and answered a prior complaint in this matter; Defendants LIGHT, WILLS, SIEP,
and LAWRENCE are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the Fifth
Amended Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g).
Defendant MONICA SHEETS signed a waiver of service but did not appear or answer a
prior complaint. 	The Court now DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to tender a copy of the Fifth
Amended Complaint (Doc. 106-1), this Order, the original Order for Service of Process (Doc. 30),
and a summons for Defendant Monica Sheets to the United States Marshals Service for service of
process consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). The Motion for Default Judgment
for Defendant Sheets (Doc. 108) is DISMISSED without prejudice to re-filing, if necessary.
Because the Fifth Amended Complaint supersedes and replaces all prior versions, the
pending Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion by Defendants Frank
Lawrence, Denise Light, Kendra Siep, and Anthony D. Wills (Doc. 80), Plaintiff’s Responses
(Docs. 91, 112), and Defendants’ Replies (Docs. 92, 93) are DISMISSED without prejudice to re-
filing with reference to the Fifth Amended Complaint. The related Motion for Extension of Time
to Respond/Reply (Doc. 107) and Motion to Strike Response (Doc. 116) are DISMISSED as
MOOT. The Court will enter a new deadline for this dispositive motion by separate order, after
all defendants answer.
Finally, the Motions to Intervene filed by Justin Dalcollo (Docs. 111 and 120) are
DENIED, and Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Response (Doc. 117) is TERMINATED.
Rule 24 provides for intervention as a matter of right and for permissive intervention. See F ED. R.
C IV. P. 24(a)(1)-(2). The proposed intervenor does not indicate whether he is seeking intervention
as a matter of right under Rule 24(a) or permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). He does not
Case 3:23-cv-01027-SMY Document 122 Filed 03/25/26 Page 7 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

8
address the requirements for intervention of either kind. He fails to identify common questions or
law or fact, and he has already filed three prior actions in this District that were dismissed: Case
Nos. 24-cv-01265-SMY; 23-00828-SPM; and 24-00358-SPM. 	The Court finds that he has not
satisfied the requirements for either one. Further, the motion was filed more than 2 years after the
action commenced and is untimely.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	March 25, 2026 	s/ Staci M. Yandle 	_____
STACI M. YANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-01027-SMY Document 122 Filed 03/25/26 Page 8 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>