Opinion
22-cv-572-jdp
12-19-2022
SHAREEF CHILDS, Plaintiff, v. HANNAH RUDOLPH, HEIDI MELLENBERGER, and CLAIRE HICKEY-WILBUR, Defendants.[1]
ORDER
JAMESD. PETERSON, JUDGE
Plaintiff Shareef Childs, appearing pro se, is an inmate at Stanley Correctional Institution. Childs alleges that prison staff retaliated against him for filing a lawsuit, including by calling him a “snitch.” I previously granted Childs leave to proceed on a variety of claims, but I did not allow him to proceed on Eighth Amendment claims for damages against defendant Hannah Rudolph for calling him a snitch or against defendants Heidi Mellenberger or Claire Hickey-Wilbur for failing to intervene after becoming aware of those remarks because Childs did not allege that he was harmed or even threatened by other inmates after being called a snitch. Dkt. 6, at 3 (“‘[U]nless a prisoner is challenging a failure to protect him from a serious risk of future harm' he cannot succeed on an Eighth Amendment claim for damages ‘based on a risk that never came to pass.'” (quoting Henry v. Deshler, No. 20-2185, 2021 WL 2838400, at *2 (7th Cir. July 8, 2021))).
Childs has responded by filing a supplement to his complaint stating that he has been receiving threats from other inmates for being a snitch and that he is living in fear from those threats. Dkt. 6. He has also filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's screening order. Dkt. 7. Because his new allegations are enough to support Eighth Amendment claims for damages against Rudolph, Mellenberger, and Hickey-Wilbur, I will consider his supplement part of the complaint and allow him to proceed on his new claims. He did not need to file a separate motion for reconsideration so I will deny that motion as moot.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Shareef Childs' motion to supplement his complaint, Dkt. 7, is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff is now GRANTED leave to proceed on the following claims:
• First Amendment retaliation and Eighth Amendment claims against defendant Rudolph.
• Failure-to-intervene claims against defendants Mellenberger and Hickey-Wilbur.
• An Eighth Amendment claim for injunctive relief against Mellenberger.
3. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 8, is DENIED as moot.
BY THE COURT: