Tatum v. Christopher et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BOBBY TATUM,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER,
BILLY AUSTIN, and KELLY BEAL,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-1474-NJR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Bobby Tatum, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections who is
currently incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, brings this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights while at Shawnee
Correctional Center.
On July 24, 2025, Tatum filed his Complaint alleging retaliation, excessive force,
sexual assault, and conditions of confinement claims against officials at Shawnee (Doc. 1).
On August 1, 2025, Tatum filed an Amended Complaint narrowing his claims to just three
individuals (Doc. 11). The claims appeared to be duplicative of claims in another case,
Tatum v. Galloway, Case No. 25-cv-1352-DWD, and the Court directed Tatum to show
cause as to why this later filed case should not be dismissed (Doc. 23). Tatum responded
that he had not properly exhausted his claims prior to filing the earlier case and sought
to pursue the claims in this case now that they were exhausted (Doc. 24). He subsequently
dismissed the previously filed case. See Tatum v. Galloway, Case No. 25-cv-1352-DWD,
Case 3:25-cv-01474-NJR Document 30 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 7 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
Doc. 19. He also filed a motion to dismiss in this case but noted that he intended to pursue
his claims in this case and sought to withdraw or dismiss the earlier filed case (Doc. 27).
Because Tatum’s motion merely informs the Court of his desire to proceed with this case,
the motion (Doc. 27) and a motion for status of the motion (Doc. 28) are DENIED as moot.
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Amended
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 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 asks for money damages from a defendant who by law
is immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The Amended Complaint
Tatum focuses his claims on just three defendants: William Christopher, Billy
Austin, and Kelly Beal (Doc. 11, p. 2). He alleges that on August 6, 2023, after a use of
force 	incident 	involving 	Correctional 	Officer 	(“C/O”) 	Craig 	and 	Sergeant 	Plot,
Lieutenant Austin and William Christopher walked Tatum through the prison while
severely injured and with his pants and underwear on the ground at his ankles (Id. at
p. 5). They exposed Tatum’s private parts to other inmates and staff, refusing to pull
Tatum’s pants up despite his pleas for them to do so (Id.). They later dropped him to the
ground on his head, causing him to lose consciousness (Id.). He awoke to Lieutenant Beal
sexually assaulting him with a stick (Id.). All three officers then sexually assaulted him
(Id. at p. 6). The officers yelled at the other inmates, informing them that this is what
happens to inmates who file grievances and lawsuits against staff and Warden Galloway
Case 3:25-cv-01474-NJR Document 30 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 7 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
(Id.). After the assault, the officers allegedly took Tatum to segregation where Sergeant
Sherrod used excessive force and Beal denied Tatum’s requests for medical care. Tatum
was then placed him in a cell with unsanitary conditions (Id.). Tatum alleges a nurse tried
to provide him medical care, but Beal told her to leave (Id.). Tatum was later informed
that Warden Galloway ordered the three officers to attack and kill Tatum for filing
lawsuits and grievances (Id.).
Preliminary Dismissals
Tatum identifies a number of individuals in his statement of claim who he fails to
identify as defendants in the case caption. He alleges that C/O Craig and Sergeant Plot
used excessive force against him just prior to the events in this lawsuit, Sergeant Sherrod
used excessive force upon Tatum’s arrival at the segregation holding cell, and Warden
Galloway ordered the sexual assault allegedly perpetrated by the named defendants in
this case. In order to be a party in the case, a plaintiff must identify them in the case
caption. See F ED. R. C IV. P. 10(a); Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551, 551–52 (7th Cir. 2005).
Because he fails to identify these individuals as defendants, any potential claim against
them is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Tatum also states in conclusory fashion that the defendants wrote a false
disciplinary ticket against him. He later alleges that all three defendants violated his
Fourteenth Amendment rights when they wrote a false disciplinary ticket against him to
cover up their actions (Doc. 11, pp. 6-7). The receipt of a false disciplinary ticket does not,
on its own, amount to a due process violation. Hadley v. Peters, 841 F. Supp. 850, 856 (C.D.
Ill. 1994), aff'd, 70 F.3d 117 (7th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); see also Hanrahan v. Lane,
Case 3:25-cv-01474-NJR Document 30 Filed 12/12/25 Page 3 of 7 Page ID
#<pageID>

4
747 F.2d 1137, 1140 (7th Cir. 1984). And Tatum fails to provide any allegations regarding
the proceedings related to that ticket or its outcome. He fails to allege that his due process
rights were violated in regard to the disciplinary ticket. Thus, any potential Fourteenth
Amendment claim is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Discussion
Based on the allegations in the Amended Complaint, the designates the following
counts:
Count 1: 	Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against William
Christopher, Kelly Beal, and Billy Austin for their use of
force against Tatum on August 6, 2023.
Count 2: 	Eighth 	Amendment 	deliberate 	indifference 	to 	medical
needs claim against Kelly Beal for denying Tatum access to
medical care.
Count 3: 	First 	Amendment 	retaliation 	claim 	against 	William
Christopher, Kelly Beal, and Billy Austin for attacking
Tatum in response to Tatum filing grievances.
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 Amended Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be
considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly
pleading standard. 1
1 See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (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”).
Case 3:25-cv-01474-NJR Document 30 Filed 12/12/25 Page 4 of 7 Page ID
#<pageID>

5
At this stage, Tatum states viable claims against the defendants. He adequately
alleges that all three defendants used excessive force against him and that they did so in
response to Tatum filing grievances at the prison. He also adequately alleges that Beal
denied him medical care when Beal refused Tatum’s requests for treatment and denied a
nurse access to Tatum. Thus, Counts 1, 2, and 3 shall proceed.
Motion for Counsel
Tatum also filed two motions requesting the assignment of counsel (Docs. 3, 25,
26). Tatum states that he needs counsel because he will have difficulties litigating his
claims because he is no longer at the prison where his claims occurred. But given the early
stage of the case, the Court finds that counsel is not necessary at this time. Defendants
have yet been served nor have they filed Answers. Once all defendants have been served
and filed Answers, the Court will enter a scheduling order with next steps in the litigation
process. Should Tatum experience difficulties in proceeding with the case at that time, he
may renew his request for counsel. At this time, Tatum’s motions for counsel (Docs. 3, 25,
26) are DENIED.
Disposition
For the reasons stated above, Count 1 shall proceed against William Christopher,
Billy Austin, and Kelly Beal. Count 2 shall proceed against Kelly Beal and Count 3 shall
proceed against William Christopher, Billy Austin, and Kelly Beal.
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for William Christopher, Billy Austin, and Kelly
Beal: (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,
Case 3:25-cv-01474-NJR Document 30 Filed 12/12/25 Page 5 of 7 Page ID
#<pageID>

6
a copy of the Amended Complaint, and this Memorandum and Order to each defendant’s
place of employment as identified by Tatum. 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 that defendant to pay the full costs of formal
service, to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
If a defendant can no longer be found at the work address provided by Tatum, 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.
Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to
the Amended Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1997e(g). Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 244, Defendants need only respond to
the issues stated in this Merit Review Order.
If judgment is rendered against Tatum, 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, Tatum 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
Case 3:25-cv-01474-NJR Document 30 Filed 12/12/25 Page 6 of 7 Page ID
#<pageID>

7
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 F ED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 12, 2025
_____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge
Notice 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 Amended Complaint. After service has
been achieved, the defendants will enter their appearance and file an Answer to your
Amended 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.
Case 3:25-cv-01474-NJR Document 30 Filed 12/12/25 Page 7 of 7 Page ID
#<pageID>