Jackson v. Quinn et al

Filing 7

MERIT REVIEW OPINION entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 10/13/2015. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: The clerk is directed to terminate Defendants Godinez and Quinn. The clerk is directed to enter the standard order granting Plaintiff's in forma paupe ris 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 Ins urance Portability and Accountability Act. Plaintiff's motion for counsel is denied (5). Plaintiff appears competent to proceed pro se in light of the relatively simple nature of his claims. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 200 7). He has personal knowledge of the prison conditions and his attempts to rectify those conditions. Additionally, his motion indicates that he has taken some college courses, and his Complaint adequately conveys the factual basis for his claims. See full written Opinion.(JS, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 13 October, 2015 08:53:10 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SAMUEL JACKSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
PAT QUINN, et al.,
Defendants.

15-CV-3163

MERIT REVIEW OPINION
JOE BILLY MCDADE, U.S. District Judge.
Plaintiff proceeds pro se from his incarceration in Lincoln
Correctional Center. His Complaint is before the Court for a merit
review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This section requires the
Court to identify cognizable claims stated by the Complaint or
dismiss claims that are not cognizable.1 In reviewing the complaint,
the Court accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally
construing them in Plaintiff's favor and taking Plaintiff’s pro se
status into account. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir.
2013). However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient.

1

 A prisoner who has had three prior actions dismissed for failure to state a claim or as frivolous or malicious can 
no longer proceed in forma pauperis unless the prisoner is under “imminent danger of serious physical injury.”  28 
U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Page 1 of 10 

Enough facts must be provided to "'state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face.'" Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th
Cir. 2013)(quoted cite omitted).
ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff alleges that he was incarcerated for about one year in
Logan Correctional Center, until all the male inmates were
transferred from Logan to Lincoln Correctional Center in March of
2013. He alleges that he noticed in Logan that his asthma became
significantly worse, with coughing and flu-like symptoms, but he
did not know why until March 1, 2013, when a small piece of
plaster fell from the ceiling, covered in raccoon hair and what
Plaintiff believed to be dirt or raccoon feces. The rest of the ceiling
looked like it was about ready to fall down. Additionally, black
mold lived in many areas of the prison, including the toilets,
showers, sinks, and rooms. The ceiling “leaked like a sieve” in snow
or rain; paint was peeling everywhere; spiders were everywhere;
and, many windows were broken, held together by labels from
shampoo bottles and the like. On hot, dry days, the dirt and dust
circulating throughout the poorly ventilated prison was allegedly
clearly visible in the air. One day a larger piece of plaster along
Page 2 of 10 

with a raccoon fell from the ceiling. (Whether the raccoon was alive
or dead is not stated). The entire roof was replaced after the male
inmates were transferred out of Logan, before the female inmates
were transferred into Logan.
ANALYSIS
Inmates must be afforded the “minimal civilized measure of
life's necessities[,]” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994),
which includes adequate ventilation and sanitation. See Budd v.
Motley, 711 F.3d 840, 841 (7th Cir. 2013)(“broken windows,

exposed wiring, extensive rust, sinks without running
water, toilets covered in mold and spider webs, and a
broken heating system” stated claim); Board v. Farnham, 394
F.3d 469, 486 (7th Cir.2005)(poor ventilation which exacerbated
asthma and contributed to detainee’s hospitalization survived
summary judgment). Physical harm is not necessarily required to
state an Eighth Amendment inhumane conditions claim, though
physical injury is required to obtain compensatory damages for
emotional suffering. See Thomas v. State of Illinois, 697 F.3d 612,
614-15 (7th Cir. 2012) (exposure to potential harm from pest
Page 3 of 10 

infestation stated claim, but dismissal upheld on other grounds).
To succeed on an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement
claim, the deprivation must have been sufficiently serious and the
defendants must have been deliberately indifferent to that
deprivation. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834.
Liberally construing Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court cannot
rule out a plausible inference that the conditions at Logan were
objectively serious enough to violate the Eighth Amendment. A
more developed record will illuminate whether the conditions were
merely unpleasant or truly uncivilized. See, e.g., Sain v. Wood, 512
F.3d 886 (7th Cir. 2008)(affirming summary judgment to defendants
on allegations of cockroaches, peeling paint, and malodor).
A plausible inference of deliberate indifference arises at this
stage against the defendants who were on site and had the
authority to fix the problems. Plaintiff names Wardens Pierce,
Golden, and Roberson, who might have had that knowledge and
authority. Defendant Jeff Short, a maintenance employee, also
might have played a part. However, former IDOC Director Godinez
and former Governor Pat Quinn are too far removed to impute
liability to them. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609-10 (7th Cir.
Page 4 of 10 

2007) (“Only persons who cause or participate in the violations are
responsible.”); Soderbeck v. Burnett County, 752 F.2d 285, 293
(7th Cir. 1985)(“Failure to take corrective action cannot in and of
itself violate section 1983. Otherwise the action of an inferior officer
would automatically be attributed up the line to his highest
superior . . . .”).
Plaintiff does not specify whether he sues Defendants in their
official or individual capacities. The Court will construe Plaintiff’s
claims as against Defendants in their individual capacities, since
Plaintiff seeks money damages. (Complaint p. 8.) A claim against
Defendants in their official capacities would be the same as a claim
against the State, and the State is immune from a suit for money
damages under the Eleventh Amendment. Norfleet v. Walker, 684
F.3d 688, 690 (7th Cir. 2012)(suing prison employee in official
capacity is suit against state agency); Wynn v. Southward, 251 F.3d
588, 592 (7th Cir. 2001)(Eleventh Amendment bars claims for
money damages against State employees in their official capacities).
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 an Eighth
Page 5 of 10 

Amendment claim for inhumane conditions of confinement against
Defendants Pierce, Roberson, Golden, and Short in their individual
capacities.

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)

Defendants Godinez and Quinn are dismissed for failure

to state a claim against them.
3)

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.
4)

The Court will attempt service on Defendants by mailing

each Defendant a waiver of service. Defendants have 60 days from
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
Page 6 of 10 

of service. After Defendants have been served, the Court will enter
an order setting discovery and dispositive motion deadlines.
5)

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.
6)

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

Page 7 of 10 

7)

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.
8)

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.
9)

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
Page 8 of 10 

or phone number will result in dismissal of this lawsuit, with
prejudice.
10)

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).
11)

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.
12) The clerk is directed to terminate Defendants
Godinez and Quinn.
13)

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.
14)

The Clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified

protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act.
Page 9 of 10 

15)

Plaintiff’s motion for counsel is denied (5). Plaintiff

appears competent to proceed pro se in light of the relatively
simple nature of his claims. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647,
654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). He has personal knowledge of the
prison conditions and his attempts to rectify those conditions.
Additionally, his motion indicates that he has taken some
college courses, and his Complaint adequately conveys the
factual basis for his claims.
ENTERED: 10/13/2015
FOR THE COURT:
s/Joe Billy McDade
JOE BILLY MCDADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 10 of 10