Mendenhall v. Johnson
| Jeff Mendenhall |
| Chad Johnson |
| 2:2026cv02029 |
| January 21, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Colin Stirling Bruce |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Conditions |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 16, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 29 CERTIFICATE of Service - Defendant's Initial Rule 26 Disclosures. (Sullivan, Timothy) |
| Filing 28 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Jeff Mendenhall.(KE) |
| Filing 27 TEXT ORDER entered by Chief District Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 7/14/2026. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint #23 . In its Merit Review Order #8 the court found that Plaintiff had sufficiently stated the following claims against Ford County Sheriff Chad Johnson: (1) a Fourteenth Amendment claim based upon the conditions of his confinement at the Ford County Jail; and (2) a claim that Johnson violated his First Amendment right by preventing or prohibiting him from attending religious services at the Jail. Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint (#23-1) seeks to add a number of claims based on the medical and mental health treatment Plaintiff received at the Jail. But Plaintiff fails to allege that Defendant Johnson played any personal role in the any of the shortcomings in his treatment, such that he has not stated any new claims against Defendant Johnson. See Palmer v. Marion Cnty., 327 F.3d 588, 594 (7th Cir. 2003) ("[Section] 1983 lawsuits against individuals require personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation to support a viable claim."). Nor, for that matter, does Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint allege what role any of the other newly named Defendants played in those constitutional deprivations; in any event, such claims against the other defendants are not properly joined with the existing claims against Defendant Johnson. See Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2012) ("Joinder that requires the inclusion of extra parties is limited to claims arising from the same transaction or series of related transactions."); Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(b). Finally, in Count VI, Plaintiff attempts to hold Johnson, in his official capacity, and Ford County liable for any constitutional deprivations. As explained in the Merit Review Order, Plaintiff's Fourteenth and First Amendment claims survived based on Defendant Johnson's overarching responsibility for the Jail. There is "an underlying commonality between individual and official capacity liability for conditions of confinement. At the motion to dismiss stage, there appears to be little practical difference in analyzing an individual capacity claim and an official capacity claim against the same defendant, where the former is premised on systemic conditions and the latter is premised on a 'widespread practice' under Monell. In other words, where, as here, a plaintiff has described prison conditions so systemic as to implicate the subjective awareness of senior jail officials, it is quite likely that those same allegations would also imply a widespread custom or practice of deliberate indifference." Brown v. Dart, 2017 WL 3219217, at *5 n.7 (N.D. Ill. July 28, 2017). Thus, Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment and First Amendment claims against Defendant Johnson may proceed as both individual capacity and official capacity claims. However, the court notes that official capacity claims against the Sheriff, while effectively claims against the Sheriff's Office, are not tantamount to claims against the County, such that Ford County is not a proper defendant. See, e.g., DeGenova v. Sheriff of DuPage Cnty., 209 F.3d 973, 976 (7th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint #23 is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to docket the proposed amended complaint (#23-1). (KE) |
| Filing 26 TEXT ORDER entered by Chief District Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 7/14/2026. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Reply #25 is GRANTED. The court will consider Plaintiff's attached proposed reply in ruling on the pending Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint #23 . (KE) |
| Filing 25 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Jeff Mendenhall. Responses due by 7/27/2026 (Mendenhall, Jeff) |
| Filing 24 RESPONSE to Motion re #23 First MOTION for Leave to File an Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Ford County Sheriff, Chad Johnson. (Sullivan, Timothy) |
| Filing 23 First MOTION for Leave to File by Plaintiff Jeff Mendenhall. Responses due by 7/15/2026 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Proposed First Amended Complaint)(Mendenhall, Jeff) |
| Filing 22 TEXT ORDER entered by Chief District Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 6/30/2026. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint #21 is DENIED. The court does not allow litigants to make piecemeal amendments to pleadings. If Plaintiff desires to amend his Complaint to add a Defendant, add a claim, substitute a Defendant, or make any other modifications or clarifications, Plaintiff should (1) file a motion seeking leave to do so in which he identifies the changes that he desires to make in his Complaint, and (2) attach a complete, proposed amended complaint that, if granted leave to file, will completely replace his original Complaint and will stand on its own without reference to or reliance upon his original complaint or some forthcoming addendum. Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n.1 (7th Cir. 2004). (KE) |
| Filing 21 MOTION for Leave to File Limited Amended/Supplemental Claim Regarding hand, finger, and related upper-extremity injuries by Plaintiff Jeff Mendenhall. Responses due by 7/1/2026 (Attachments: #1 Supplement Proposed Limited Amended/Supplemental Hand Injury Claim)(Mendenhall, Jeff) Modified on 6/18/2026 to correct entry title. (KLC) |
| Filing 20 TEXT ORDER entered by Chief District Judge Colin S. Bruce on 6/17/2026. Plaintiff has filed a renewed Motion for Recruitment of Counsel #18 . In the same Motion, he also requests extensions to discovery deadlines. In deciding whether to recruit counsel for a pro se litigant, the court must determine, "given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself?" Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 653 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff has attached to his Motion medical records showing that he suffers from, inter alia, intermittent hallucinations and impaired attention and concentration. The court at this time finds that Plaintiff is competent to litigate this matter himself. The court does not doubt that Plaintiff's mental health issues have an impact on his ability to litigate this case. But Plaintiff has the benefit of not being in custody. More importantly, he has attached certain exhibits to his Motiondocumentation of his attempts to procure private counsel and of efforts to attain information via FOIA requeststhat demonstrate a rather remarkable competence on Plaintiff's part. Further, while Plaintiff attaches medical records evidencing a hand or finger injury, his claims in this case relate to his being kept in a cell covered in urine and feces and being prevented from attending religious services. It is, at the very least, unclear the extent to which medical records or causation will play any role in this case. For those reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Recruitment of Counsel #18 is DENIED as to the request for counsel. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent it requests a 45-day extension of the deadlines contemplated in the court's Scheduling Order #17 . (SAG) |
| Filing 19 CERTIFICATE of Service - Defendant First Sets of Discovery to Plaintiff. (Sullivan, Timothy) |
| Filing 18 Amended MOTION to Request Counsel by Plaintiff Jeff Mendenhall. Responses due by 6/26/2026 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Condensed Exhibit Packet in Support of Plaintiff's Renewed Motion)(Mendenhall, Jeff) |
Filing 17
SCHEDULING ORDER entered by Chief District Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 6/1/2026. Discovery due by 12/1/2026. Motions due by 1/4/2027. See written order. (Attachments: #1 Consent Packet)(KE)
|
| Filing 16 ANSWER to #1 Complaint AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Pursuant to Court's Merit Review Order of April 13, 2026 by Chad Johnson.(Smith, Brian) |
| Filing 15 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Timothy Sullivan on behalf of Chad Johnson (Sullivan, Timothy) |
| Filing 14 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Chad Johnson. Chad Johnson waiver sent on 4/13/2026, answer due 6/12/2026. (Smith, Brian) |
| Filing 13 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Brian Michael Smith on behalf of Chad Johnson (Smith, Brian) |
| Filing 12 TEXT ORDER entered by Chief District Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 4/28/2026. Plaintiff's motion for counsel #11 is DENIED. The Court does not possess the authority to require an attorney to accept pro bono appointments on civil cases such as this. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 653 (7th Cir. 2007). The most that the Court may do is to ask for volunteer counsel. Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1071 (7th Cir. 1992). In deciding whether to recruit counsel for a pro se litigant, the Court must determine, "given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself?" Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 654-55. Here, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is not competent to litigate this case himself. Plaintiff claims that he suffers from a brain injury and medical conditions, which render him incapable of litigating this case himself. However, Plaintiff has offered no evidence of his injury or his medical condition, nor has he demonstrated why or how those conditions impede his ability to litigate this case himself. In addition, even if the Court were to recruit counsel for Plaintiff, the Court would not require pro bono counsel to bear the costs associated with hiring an expert witness. Those costs must be paid by Plaintiff, and therefore, the need for an expert witness is not grounds upon which the Court should recruit counsel. Finally, the Court has not yet effected service on Defendant, and so, there is nothing for Plaintiff to do in this case at this stage of the litigation. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for counsel is denied at this time. (KE) |
| Filing 11 MOTION to Request Counsel by Plaintiff Jeff Mendenhall. Responses due by 5/11/2026 (Mendenhall, Jeff) |
| Filing 10 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Chad Johnson on 4/13/2026. (KE) |
|
Filing 9
HIPAA QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER entered by Chief Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 4/13/2026. See written order. (KE)
|
|
Filing 8
MERIT REVIEW ORDER entered by Chief Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 4/13/2026. Pursuant to its merit review of Plaintiff's Complaint under 28 U.S.C. Sec 1915A, the Court finds that the Complaint states two claims: (1) a claim that Sheriff Chad Johnson violated Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights based upon the conditions of his confinement at the Ford County Jail; and (2) a claim that Sheriff Chad Johnson violated his First Amendment right by preventing or prohibiting him from attending religious services at the Jail. Any additional claims shall not be included in the case except at the Court's discretion and on a motion by a party for good cause shown or pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The Clerk of the Court is directed to add Ford County Sheriff Chad Johnson as a party Defendant. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to dismiss all other named defendants because Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim against them upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. Sec 1915A; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Clerk is also directed to effect service of process on Sheriff Chad Johnson pursuant to the Court's standard procedures. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. See written order. (KE)
|
|
Filing 7
TEXT ORDER entered by Chief Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 3/24/2026. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #5 is GRANTED. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(b)(1) and based upon his representations contained within Plaintiff's petition, no initial filing fee is imposed. However, Plaintiff remains responsible for paying the $350.00, in full, as soon as he is able to do so. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this case. (KE)
|
|
Filing 6
TEXT ORDER entered by Chief Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 3/20/2026. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file via the Court's Case Management System #4 is GRANTED. If he has not already done so, Plaintiff is directed to register for electronic filing by: (1) obtaining a PACER Account at www.pacer.gov; and then (2) requesting filer permission from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois by following the instructions found at Registering for an E-Filing Account at the bottom of the Court's web page for non-attorney filers: https://www.ilcd.uscourts.gov/content/attorney-admission-pacer. Unless and until registration for electronic filing is complete, Plaintiff remains responsible for filing paper documents in this case. (SAG)
|
| Filing 5 PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, filed by Jeff Mendenhall. (KLC) |
| Filing 4 MOTION for Leave to File Electronically by Plaintiff Jeff Mendenhall. Responses due by 4/2/2026. (KLC) |
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 3/5/2026. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #3 is DENIED with leave to re-file. Plaintiff has moved for leave to proceed IFP in this case, alleging that he cannot pay the filing fee, in full, based upon his financial condition. However, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information with which the Court can determine whether he qualifies for IFP status. Specifically, Plaintiff has not provided any financial information other than indicating, generally, that he has limited financial resources. In addition, Plaintiff has not signed his IFP petition under the penalties for perjury; he has simply typed his name on his motion. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to send the Court's IFP form for non-prisoner litigants to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is not required to use the Court's form in seeking to proceed in forma pauperis in this case, but he must provide all of the information required by the form if and when he re-moves for IFP status. Alternatively, Plaintiff may pay the $405.00 filing fee, in full. Accordingly, Plaintiff has up to and including March 23, 2023, within which to pay the filing fee or to re-file his IFP petition that includes all of the information necessary for the Court to consider his request. If Plaintiff does not timely comply with this Order, the Court will dismiss this case. (KE)
|
| Filing 3 PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, filed by Jeff Mendenhall.(KE) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF CASE OPENING. Please be advised that your case has been assigned to Judge Colin Stirling Bruce. Effective immediately, all documents should be mailed or scanned to the Urbana Division, 201 S Vine Street, Urbana, IL 61802.Merit Review Deadline set for 2/10/2026. (Attachments: #1 Notice Regarding Privacy Issues)(KE) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Jeff Mendenhall. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(KE) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Mendenhall v. Johnson | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Jeff Mendenhall | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Chad Johnson | |
| Represented By: | Timothy Sullivan |
| Represented By: | Brian Michael Smith |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
