Matthew Wojtaszek v. Thomas Dart, et al

Filing

Filed Nonprecedential Disposition PER CURIAM. Wojtaszek incurred one "strike" for filing his complaint and incurs another for this appeal. AFFIRMED. Richard D. Cudahy, Circuit Judge; Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge and Diane S. Sykes, Circuit Judge. [6554221-1] [6554221] [13-1884]

Case: 13-1884 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
Document: 32
Filed: 02/21/2014

Pages: 2

To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 21, 2014*
Decided February 21, 2014
Before
RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 13-1884
MATTHEW H. WOJTASZEK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

Appeal from the United States
District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division.

v.
No. 13 C 1687
THOMAS DART, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

Matthew F. Kennelly,
Judge.

ORDER
Matthew Wojtaszek brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that jail
officials were deliberately indifferent to his complaints about the prison’s infrequent

*

The appellees were not served with process in the district court and are not
participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we
have concluded that the case is appropriate for summary disposition. Thus, the appeal
is submitted on the appellant’s brief and the record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

Case: 13-1884

No. 13-1884

Document: 32

Filed: 02/21/2014

Pages: 2

Page 2

laundry service. The district court dismissed the complaint at screening. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). We affirm.
Wojtaszek alleged that while he was a pretrial detainee at Cook County Jail, his
bedding was exchanged only one or two times per month, laundry service was
available even less so, and he once went seven weeks without laundry service for his
uniform (and was not allowed to wash it himself). In dismissing the complaint for
failure to state a claim, the district court concluded that the laundry service Wojtaszek
described was not objectively serious because it did not deny him the “minimal
civilized measures of life’s necessities.”
On appeal Wojtaszek asserts that the district court wrongly dismissed his
complaint because the prison’s limited laundry service creates an unconstitutional
condition of confinement. But as the district court explained, infrequent laundry service
alone is not an objectively serious condition that violates the constitution. See Martin v.
Tyson, 845 F.2d 1451, 1457 (7th Cir. 1988) (lack of pillow and cleaning supplies, and
infrequent laundry services not unconstitutional); Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 342 (5th
Cir. 2004).
Wojtaszek incurred one “strike” for filing his complaint and incurs another for
this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Hains v. Washington, 131 F.3d 1248, 1250 (7th Cir.
1997).
AFFIRMED.