Woods v. Schmeltz et al

Filing 8

MERIT REVIEW OPINION: Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states the following claims: a) Defendants Schmeltz, Deal, French and Robinson violated the Plaintiff's eighth a mendment rights when they forced the Plaintiff to stay in a cell with feces for four days beginning August 22, 2013; and, b) Defendants John Doe, Schmeltz, Berry and Lovrant violated the Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights when they placed hi m in a cell with feces from August 26, 2103 to October 7, 2013 and refused to take any action. This case proceeds solely on the claims identified in this paragraph. Any additional claims shall not be included in the case, except at the Court&# 039;s discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown or pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. This case is now in the process of service. The clerk is directed to enter the standard order granting Plaintiff's in forma pauperis petition and assessing an initial partial filing fee, if not already done, and to attempt service on Defendants pursuant to the standard procedures. The Clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Rule 16 Deadline 2/9/2015. (SEE WRITTEN OPINION) Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 12/11/2014. (GL, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 11 December, 2014 10:41:02 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MAURICE WOODS,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRIAN SCHMELTZ, et. al,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

14-CV-1336

MERIT REVIEW OPINION
The case is before the Court for a merit review of the Plaintiff’s
amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
BACKGROUND
The court dismissed the Plaintiff’s original complaint as a
violation of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See
October 2, 2014 Merit Review Opinion. The Plaintiff had attached
grievances to his complaint instead of providing the relevant
information in the body of his complaint. Therefore, the Plaintiff
was given additional time to file an amended complaint clarifying
his claims and the Plaintiff has now complied. See October 2, 2014
Merit Review Opinion.

1 

The court must still review the amended complaint pursuant
to §1915A, and through such process identify and dismiss any
legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if warranted. A claim
is legally insufficient if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
§1915A.
ALLEGATIONS
The Plaintiff says nine Defendants at Pontiac Correctional
Center violated his constitutional rights including Brian Schmeltz,
Kent Robinson, Brian Maier, Randy Lovrant, Jacob Liles, Glendal
French, Adam Deal, James Berry and John Doe.
The Plaintiff says he was placed in a cell on crisis watch on
August 22, 2013 and he spread feces on his cell window.
Defendants Schmeltz, Deal, French and Robinson knew the feces
was on the window, but refused to allow Plaintiff any cleaning
supplies or to move him to another cell for four days.
Defendant John Doe eventually moved the Plaintiff to a second
cell on August 26, 2103 where he remained until October 7, 2013.
The Plaintiff says he told Officer John Doe the cell smelled like feces
2 

and the officer agreed to tell his supervisor. The Plaintiff later
discovered feces under his sink and in the cracks of the window.
He complained to Defendants Schmeltz, Berry and Lovrant, but
they refused to have the cell cleaned or move the Plaintiff to a
different cell.
ANALYSIS
The Plaintiff has articulated two violations of his Eighth
Amendment rights based on his living conditions in two separate
cells. Although the Constitution does not mandate comfortable
prisons, prisoners have the right to “the minimal civilized measure
of life's necessities.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101
S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). Life's necessities include shelter,
heat, clothing, sanitation, and hygiene items. See Gillis v. Litscher,
468 F.3d 488, 493 (7th Cir.2006). “But prison conditions do not
violate the Eighth Amendment unless there is a sufficiently serious
deprivation and the defendants were deliberately indifferent, i.e.,
they were aware of the conditions but failed to take reasonable
measures to abate them.” Morris v. Ley, 331 Fed.Appx. 417, 420-21
(7th Cir. 2009) citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 299 (1991).

3 

It is possible the prevalence of human waste in the Plaintiff’s
cells reached such a point of inhabitablity as to deprive him of the
“minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.” Rhodes, 452 U.S. at
347; see Vinning–El, 482 F.3d at 924–25 (reversing summary
judgment where prisoner was held for six days without sanitation
items in cell contaminated with human waste and in which sink
and toilet did not work); Johnson v. Pelker, 891 F.2d 136, 139–40
(7th Cir.1989) (reversing summary judgment where prisoner was
denied cleaning supplies and confined for three days to cell that
was smeared with human waste and lacked running water);DeSpain
v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965, 974 (10th Cir.2001) (“Exposure to human
waste, like few other conditions of confinement, evokes both the
health concerns emphasized in Farmer [v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994),] and the more general
standards of dignity embodied in the Eighth Amendment.”).
Therefore, for the purposes of notice pleading, the Plaintiff may
proceed with both of his claims.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1)

Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28

U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states the following
4 

claims: a) Defendants Schmeltz, Deal, French and Robinson
violated the Plaintiff’s eighth amendment rights when they forced
the Plaintiff to stay in a cell with feces for four days beginning
August 22, 2013; and, b) Defendants John Doe, Schmeltz, Berry
and Lovrant violated the Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights when
they placed him in a cell with feces from August 26, 2103 to
October 7, 2013 and refused to take any action. This case proceeds
solely on the claims identified in this paragraph. Any additional
claims shall not be included in the case, except at the Court’s
discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown or pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
2)

This case is now in the process of service. Plaintiff is

advised to wait until counsel has appeared for Defendants before
filing any motions, in order to give 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 otherwise directed by the Court.
3)

The Court will attempt service on Defendants by mailing

each Defendant a waiver of service. Defendants have 60 days from
5 

the date the waiver is sent to file an Answer. If Defendants have not
filed Answers or appeared through counsel within 90 days of the
entry of this order, Plaintiff may file a motion requesting the status
of service. After Defendants have been served, the Court will enter
an order setting discovery and dispositive motion deadlines.
4)

With respect to a Defendant who no longer works at the

address provided by Plaintiff, the entity for whom that Defendant
worked while at that address shall provide to the Clerk said
Defendant's current work address, or, if not known, said
Defendant's forwarding address. This information shall be used
only for effectuating service. Documentation of forwarding
addresses shall be retained only by the Clerk and shall not be
maintained in the public docket nor disclosed by the Clerk.
5)

Defendants shall file an answer within 60 days of the

date the waiver is sent by the Clerk. A motion to dismiss is not an
answer. The answer should include all defenses appropriate under
the Federal Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings shall be
to the issues and claims stated in this Opinion. In general, an
answer sets forth Defendants' positions. The Court does not rule
on the merits of those positions unless and until a motion is filed by
6 

Defendants. Therefore, no response to the answer is necessary or
will be considered.
6)

This District uses electronic filing, which means that,

after Defense counsel has filed an appearance, Defense counsel will
automatically receive electronic notice of any motion or other paper
filed by Plaintiff with the Clerk. Plaintiff does not need to mail to
Defense counsel copies of motions and other papers that Plaintiff
has filed with the Clerk. However, this does not apply to discovery
requests and responses. Discovery requests and responses are not
filed with the Clerk. Plaintiff must mail his discovery requests and
responses directly to Defendants' counsel. Discovery requests or
responses sent to the Clerk will be returned unfiled, unless they are
attached to and the subject of a motion to compel. Discovery does
not begin until Defense counsel has filed an appearance and the
Court has entered a scheduling order, which will explain the
discovery process in more detail.
7)

Counsel for Defendants is hereby granted leave to depose

Plaintiff at his place of confinement. Counsel for Defendants shall
arrange the time for the deposition.

7 

8)

Plaintiff shall immediately notify the Court, in writing, of

any change in his mailing address and telephone number.
Plaintiff's failure to notify the Court of a change in mailing address
or phone number will result in dismissal of this lawsuit, with
prejudice.
9)

If a Defendants fails to sign and return a waiver of service

to the clerk within 30 days after the waiver is sent, the Court will
take appropriate steps to effect formal service through the U.S.
Marshal's service on that Defendant and will require that Defendant
to pay the full costs of formal service pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(d)(2).
10)

Within 10 days of receiving from Defendants' counsel an

authorization to release medical records, Plaintiff is directed to sign
and return the authorization to Defendants' counsel.
11)

The clerk is directed to enter the standard order

granting Plaintiff's in forma pauperis petition and assessing an
initial partial filing fee, if not already done, and to attempt
service on Defendants pursuant to the standard procedures.

8 

12)

The Clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified

protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act.
ENTERED: December 11, 2014
FOR THE COURT:
s/ Sue E. Myerscough

____________________________ 
                                                 SUE E. MYERSCOUGH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

9