Charles v. Crawford et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMAAL CHARLES,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
CRAWFORD and
SERGEANT BRIDWELL,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-2057-NJR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Plaintiff Jamaal Charles, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections who
is 	currently 	incarcerated 	at 	Lawrence 	Correctional 	Center, 	brings 	this 	action 	for
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the Complaint,
Charles alleges that Correctional Officer (“C/O”) Crawford and Sergeant Bridwell used
excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the 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).
Case 3:25-cv-02057-NJR Document 12 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
The Complaint
On November 24, 2023, Charles was moved to segregation and correctional
officers confiscated his gym shoes (Doc. 1, pp. 5, 9). Charles alleges that he has a medical
permit for his shoes and is allowed to have them in segregation. He spoke to Nurse Newly
about his shoes and she brought him his medical permit to show the officers (Id. at p. 5).
The following day, he notified C/O Crawford about his medical permit. Charles stuck
his right arm through his chuckhole to present the permit to Crawford and told him to
go get his gym shoes (Id.). Crawford took the medical permit, looked at it, balled the
paper up, and threw it back at Charles (Id.). Crawford then grabbed Charles’s right hand
and started twisting his fingers and wrist (Id.). He also hit Charles’s arm (Id.).
In response, Charles grabbed the chuckhole because Crawford was trying to push
his arm back inside his cell (Doc. 1, p. 6). Despite Crawford punching Charles multiple
times in the arm, Charles refused to let go of the chuckhole. Charles alleges that Crawford
and Sergeant Bridwell took the lid off of his chuckhole (Id.).
Lieutenant Livingston then approached and inquired as to what was going on
(Doc. 1, p. 6). Charles produced his medical permit for his gym shoes (Id.). Livingston
instructed Charles to put his arm back in his cell and directed Crawford to fetch the gym
shoes (Id.).
As a result of the encounter, Charles alleges that he experienced swelling in his
hand and pain in his entire arm. He received pain medication and ointment for the cuts
and scrapes on his hand (Id.).
Case 3:25-cv-02057-NJR Document 12 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
Discussion
Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates the following
count:
Count 1: 	Eighth 	Amendment 	excessive 	force 	claim 	against
C/O Crawford and Sergeant Bridwell for their use of force
against Charles on November 24, 2023.
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. 1
At 	this 	stage, 	Charles 	states 	a 	viable 	claim 	for 	excessive 	force 	against
C/O Crawford. Hendrickson v. Cooper, 589 F.3d 887, 890 (7th Cir. 2009) (“The core
requirement for such a claim is that [the defendant] used force not ‘in a good-faith effort
to maintain or restore discipline,’ but ‘maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.’”).
Charles alleges that Crawford twisted his fingers and wrist, as well as punched his arm,
in response to Charles requesting his gym shoes. That is enough at this stage to state a
viable claim.
But Charles fails to state a claim against Sergeant Bridwell. Bridwell’s role in the
incident is not entirely clear from the pleadings. Charles merely alleges that Bridwell
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-02057-NJR Document 12 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

4
helped Crawford remove the lid on the chuckhole when Charles refused to let go of it.
There are no allegations to suggest that he participated in the twisting or punching, nor
are there any allegations to suggest that Bridwell used force in any other fashion. Because
the allegations fail to allege that Bridwell used force against Charles, the claim against
Bridwell is dismissed.
Disposition
For the reasons stated above, Count 1 shall proceed against C/O Crawford. The
claim against Sergeant Bridwell is DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for C/O Crawford: (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
Charles. 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
defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
If defendant can no longer be found at the work address provided by Charles, 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
Case 3:25-cv-02057-NJR Document 12 Filed 02/09/26 Page 4 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

5
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 Charles, 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, Charles 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 F ED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 9, 2026
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-02057-NJR Document 12 Filed 02/09/26 Page 5 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

6
Notice to Plaintiff
The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the appropriate defendant of your
lawsuit and serve him with a copy of your Complaint. After service has been achieved,
the defendant will enter an 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 defendant’s Answer,
but it is entirely possible that it will take 90 days or more. When the defendant has filed
an Answer, 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 defendant before filing any motions, to give the defendant notice and
an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before defendant’s 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-02057-NJR Document 12 Filed 02/09/26 Page 6 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>