Washington v. Maskel et al

Filing 8

MERIT REVIEW ORDER Entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 4/18/23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO: 1) Deny Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, 4 ; 2) Attempt service on Defendants pursuant to the standard procedure s; 3) Set an internal court deadline 60 days from the entry of this order for the court to check on the status of service and enter scheduling deadlines; and 4) Enter the Court's standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER. (ANW)

2:23-cv-02065-JES # 8

Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DARRELL WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

vs.
SERGEANT MASKEL, et. al.,
Defendants

Case No. 23-2065

MERIT REVIEW ORDER
JAMES E. SHADID, U.S. District Judge:
This cause is before the Court for merit review of the Plaintiff’s complaint. The
Court is required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A to “screen” the Plaintiff’s complaint, and through
such process to 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.
Plaintiff says his constitutional rights were violated at the Vermillion County Jail
from February 2, 2023, until the filing of his complaint on March 21, 2023. Plaintiff has
identified twelve Defendants including Sergeants Maskel, Anderson, Bharbacek, Kelsey
Ward, and N. White; and Correctional Officer Roberson, Rodrigez, Kline, Turner,
Catlin, K. Pratt and A Pratt.
Plaintiff complains about conditions at the jail including contaminated water and
a lack of drinking water, cold temperatures, and inadequate bedding for the cold.
While Plaintiff claims the water is contaminated, he does not clearly explain how it was
1

2:23-cv-02065-JES # 8

Page 2 of 8

contaminated. Plaintiff refers to “rusted water,” but he does not allege he or any other
detainees became ill or suffered with other health problems. (Comp, p. 14). In addition,
Plaintiff does not explain why he believed it was unsafe to shower in the water.
Nonetheless, it appears jail staff was aware something was wrong with the water
since Plaintiff claims staff would bring pitchers of water for inmates to drink during the
day instead of drinking the water in their cells. In addition, Plaintiff says he was not
provided enough water to drink. Plaintiff claims the pitchers were often placed out-ofreach, or the named Defendants would refuse to provide enough water. At night,
Plaintiff says he was forced to go without any drinking water for approximately 12
hours. Plaintiff has also provided a copy of a grievance response concerning the water
which states maintenance was “advised of this issue. This has nothing to do with
corrections.” (Comp. p. 19).
Finally, Plaintiff says when he asked the Defendants for blankets or other
bedding to stay warm, his requests were denied.
If Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the time of his claims, he must allege: (1) the
complained of conditions were objectively serious; (2) the defendant “acted
purposefully, knowingly, or perhaps even recklessly;” and (3) the defendant's conduct
was objectively unreasonable. Miranda v. Cty. of Lake, 900 F.3d 335, 353-54 (7th Cir. 2018)
Miranda, 900 F.3d at 353-54; see also Kemp v. Fulton County, 27 F.4th 491, 495 (7th Cir.
2022). “For a condition to be ‘sufficiently serious,’ it must result in a ‘denial of the
minimal civilized measure of life's necessities’ such as a denial of a basic human need
including food, medical care, sanitation, or physical safety.” Arringon v. Donathan, 2022
2

2:23-cv-02065-JES # 8

Page 3 of 8

WL 4466714, at *2 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2022), quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834
(1994); see also Mays v. Dart, 453 F.Supp.3d 1074, 1091 (N.D. Ill. April 9, 2020).
For purposes of notice pleading, Plaintiff has alleged unconstitutional living
conditions based on contaminated water, a failure to provide enough drinking water,
cold temperatures, and inadequate bedding for cold conditions. See Smith v. Dart, 803
F.3d 304, 313 (7th Cir. 2015) (accepting plaintiff’s allegations as true, court “cannot say
(plaintiff’s) allegations of contaminated water fail to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted”). Plaintiff must be able to demonstrate the water was uncontaminated and
unsafe for drinking or bathing.
The Court notes on page two of the grievance, there is a list of signatures under
the heading: “Plaintiffs.” (Comp., p. 2). At the bottom of the page, Plaintiff says the
listed inmates were all on G-block when there were problems with the water.
However, there is no indication these individuals read the content of the complaint or
intended to proceed with this lawsuit. Plaintiff Washington is the only individual who
signed the complaint form and the only individual who submitted a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Therefore, Plaintiff Washington is the only Plaintiff in this
lawsuit.
If Plaintiff intended to file a multi-plaintiff lawsuit, he may file an amended
complaint with all claims against all Defendants and each intended Plaintiff MUST sign
the bottom of the complaint form acknowledging they have reviewed the complaint
and intend to pursue this litigation. Each Plaintiff is also required to sign future filings
in this litigation. In addition, each Plaintiff must either pay the entire $402 filing fee or
3

2:23-cv-02065-JES # 8

Page 4 of 8

file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Each Plaintiff must also be able to
demonstrate he fully exhausted his administrative remedies before the complaint was
filed. 1 Any amended complaint must be filed within 21 days of this order.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. [4]. Plaintiff has no
constitutional right to the appointment of counsel. In addition, the Court cannot
require an attorney to accept pro bono appointment in a civil case. The most the Court
can do is ask for volunteer counsel. See Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1071
(7th Cir. 1992).
In considering Plaintiff’s motion, the Court must ask two questions: “(1) has the
indigent plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively
precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff
appear competent to litigate it himself?” Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007),
citing Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 322 (7th Cir. 1993).
In this case, Plaintiff has not demonstrated any attempt to find counsel on his
own such as a list of attorneys contacted, or copies of letters sent or received. This is a
mandatory, threshold inquiry that must be determined before moving to the second
inquiry.” Eagan v. Dempsey, 2021 WL 456002, at *8 (7th Cir. 2021); citing Davis v.
Moroney, 857 F.3d 748, 753 (7th Cir. 2017). Therefore, the motion is denied with leave to
renew. [4].

1

The Court will also be required to alert each prisoner plaintiff to the potential downside of multiplaintiff, prisoner litigation. See Boriboune v. Berge, 391 F.3d 852, 854-56 (7th Cir. 2004): see also Hudson v.
Holcomb, 2022 WL 17552162, at *1–2 (S.D.Ind. Dec. 9, 2022)

4

2:23-cv-02065-JES # 8

Page 5 of 8

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Pursuant to its merit review of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the
Court finds the Plaintiff alleges the named Defendants violated his constitutional
rights based on his living conditions at the Vermillion County Jail including
contaminated water, insufficient drinking water, cold temperatures, and
inadequate bedding for the temperatures. The claim is stated against each
Defendant in his individual capacity. 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 service 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.
5

2:23-cv-02065-JES # 8

Page 6 of 8

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 Order. 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 Defendants. Therefore, no
response to the answer is necessary or will be considered.
6) Once counsel has appeared for a Defendant, Plaintiff need not send copies of
his filings to that Defendant or to that Defendant's counsel. Instead, the Clerk will
file Plaintiff's document electronically and send a notice of electronic filing to
defense counsel.

The notice of electronic filing shall constitute service on

Defendants pursuant to Local Rule 5.3. If electronic service on Defendants is not
available, Plaintiff will be notified and instructed accordingly.

6

2:23-cv-02065-JES # 8

Page 7 of 8

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.
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) 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.
10) The only Plaintiff currently in this case is Plaintiff Washington. Any amended,
multi-plaintiff complaint must be filed within 21 days of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO:
1) Deny Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, [4]; 2) Attempt service
on Defendants pursuant to the standard procedures; 3) Set an internal court
deadline 60 days from the entry of this order for the court to check on the
status of service and enter scheduling deadlines; and 4) Enter the Court's
standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act.

7

2:23-cv-02065-JES # 8

Page 8 of 8

Entered this 18th day of April, 2023.

s/James E. Shadid
_________________________________________
JAMES E. SHADID
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8