Richardson v. McLaurin et al

Filing 8

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 11/10/2014. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
KEVIN RICHARDSON, #B-881262,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
MAJOR MCLAURIN, LT. NANCE,
SGT. SCOTT, MS. MARY,
C/O MIKE RICKMAN, C/O GILMORE,
SGT. STRUBERG, JERRY HIGHTS,
and SGT. LEVI BRIDGES,
Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-01109-NJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Plaintiff Kevin Richardson, currently an inmate at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”),
brings this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action relates to deprivations
Plaintiff alleges occurred while he was an inmate at the St. Clair County Detention Center
(“Detention Center”) in St. Clair, Illinois.

Plaintiff names as Defendants Major Mclaurin

(superintendent), Lt. Nance (shift supervisor), Sgt. Scott (shift supervisor), Ms. Mary (food
supervisor), C/O Mike Rickman (block officer), C/O Gilmore (block officer), Sgt. Struberg (shift
supervisor), Jerry Hights (block officer), and Sgt. Levi Bridges (maintenance supervisor). Plaintiff
asserts that Defendants subjected him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement while he was
held at the Detention Center (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Merits Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915
Under § 1915A, the Court is required to promptly screen prisoner complaints to filter out
nonmeritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court is required to dismiss any portion of the
complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

Page 1 of 7

or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b).
An action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The claim of entitlement to relief must cross
“the line between possibility and plausibility.” Id. at 557. At the same time, the factual allegations of
a pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577
F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009). At this preliminary stage, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint
passes threshold review.
The Complaint
Plaintiff arrived at the Detention Center on March 13, 2014, and remained there until October
23, 2014. 1 During his incarceration at the Detention Center, Plaintiff asserts that he was subjected to
a number of unconstitutional conditions of confinement, including: small amounts of food; bugs in
the food; paint peeling off the bars, walls, showers, and tables; a lack of cleaning supplies adequate
to maintain a clean and safe living environment; showers caked with body filth; foul-smelling and
decrepit urinals; clogged and dirty ventilation units; and mold on the ceiling in the dishroom. (Doc. 1,
p. 6). Plaintiff maintains that the conditions were hazardous to his health and safety and caused him
mental stress and anguish. Id. at 7.
The complaint details Plaintiff’s various attempts to inform each Defendant of the conditions,
through either verbal complaints or written grievances. Id. at 6. Plaintiff asserts that nothing was
ever done to address the alleged unconstitutional conditions. Plaintiff seeks $5,000,000 in punitive
damages.

1

On October 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address informing the Court that he is now incarcerated at
Menard Correctional Center. (Doc. 5).

Page 2 of 7

Discussion
Legal Standard for Pre-trial Detainee Claims
The claims in the present action arose while Plaintiff was being held as a pre-trial detainee at
the St. Clair County Detention Center. His claims, therefore, arise under the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment. See Budd v. Motley, 711 F.3d 840, 842 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Rice ex
rel. Rice v. Corr. Med. Servs., 675 F.3d 650, 664 (7th Cir. 2012)). See also Klebanowski v. Sheahan,
540 F.3d 633, 637 (7th Cir. 2008). Although the Seventh Circuit has made it clear that pre-trial
detainees are afforded “at least as much protection as the constitution provides convicted prisoners,”
the Seventh Circuit has also “found it convenient and entirely appropriate to apply the same standard
to claims arising under the Fourteenth Amendment (detainees) and Eighth Amendment (convicted
prisoners) ‘without differentiation.’”

Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 478 (7th Cir. 2005)

(emphasis in original) (quoting Henderson v. Sheahan, 196 F.3d 839, 845 n.2 (7th Cir. 1999) (citing
Cavalieri v. Shepard, 321 F.3d 616, 620 (7th Cir. 2003)).
Count 1:

Conditions of confinement claim

The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment and has been a means of
improving prison conditions that were constitutionally unacceptable.

See, e.g., Robinson v.

California, 370 U.S. 660, 666 (1962); Sellers v. Henman, 41 F.3d 1100, 1102 (7th Cir. 1994). Jail
officials violate the Eighth Amendment when they show deliberate indifference to adverse conditions
that deny “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,” including “adequate sanitation and
personal hygiene items.” Budd v. Motley, 711 F.3d 840, 842 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (citation omitted); Rice ex rel. Rice, 675 F.3d at 664; Gillis v.
Litscher, 468 F.3d 488 (7th Cir. 2006); Vinning-El v. Long, 482 F.3d 923, 924 (7th Cir. 2007)).
In order to prevail on a claim attacking the conditions of confinement, a plaintiff must allege
facts that, if true, would satisfy the objective and subjective components applicable to all Eighth
Amendment claims. McNeil v. Lane, 16 F.3d 123, 124 (7th Cir. 1994); see also Wilson v. Seiter, 501
Page 3 of 7

U.S. 294, 302 (1991). The objective analysis examines whether the conditions of confinement
exceeded the contemporary bounds of decency of a mature civilized society. Id. The subjective
component of unconstitutional punishment is the intent with which the acts or practices constituting
the alleged punishment are inflicted. Jackson v. Duckworth, 955 F.2d 21, 22 (7th Cir. 1992). The
subjective component requires that a prison official had a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Wilson,
501 U.S. at 298; see also McNeil v. Lane, 16 F.3d 123, 124 (7th Cir. 1994). In conditions of
confinement cases, the relevant state of mind is deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety; the
official must be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of
serious harm exists, and he also must draw the inference. See, e.g., Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 837 (1994); Wilson, 501 U.S. at 303; Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); DelRaine v.
Williford, 32 F.3d 1024, 1032 (7th Cir. 1994). The deliberate indifference standard is satisfied if the
plaintiff shows that the prison official acted or failed to act despite the official’s knowledge of a
substantial risk of serious harm. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842. A failure of prison officials to act in such
circumstances suggests that the officials actually want the prisoner to suffer the harm. Jackson v.
Duckworth, 955 F.2d 21, 22 (7th Cir. 1992).
The Seventh Circuit has observed that “conditions of confinement, even if not individually
serious enough to work constitutional violations, may violate the Constitution in combination when
they have a ‘mutually enforcing effect that produces the deprivation of a single, identifiable human
need.’” Budd, 711 F.3d at 842 (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991); see also Gillis,
468 F.3d at 493; Murphy v. Walker, 51 F.3d 714, 721 (7th Cir. 1995)).
In this case, Plaintiff has identified numerous conditions that collectively support a claim for
unconstitutional conditions of confinement. See Thomas v. Illinois, 697 F.3d 612, 614-15 (7th Cir.
2012) (depending on the severity, duration, nature of risk, and susceptibility of the inmate, prison
conditions may violate the Eighth Amendment if they caused either physical, psychological, or
probabilistic harm).
Page 4 of 7

Further, the complaint alleges that Defendants are liable for the unconstitutional conditions
because they were personally made aware of the conditions, but failed to correct any of the problems.
At this juncture, more facts are needed to determine whether each Defendant acted with the requisite
intent.

Accordingly, Plaintiff shall be allowed to proceed with a claim for unconstitutional

conditions of confinement (Count 1) against Defendants Major Mclaurin, Lt. Nance, Sgt. Scott, Ms.
Mary, C/O Mike Rickman, C/O Gilmore, Sgt. Struberg, Jerry Hights, and Sgt. Levi Bridges in their
individual capacities.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claim for damages against Defendants MAJOR
MCLAURIN, LT. NANCE, SGT. SCOTT, MS. MARY, C/O MIKE RICKMAN, C/O
GILMORE, SGT. STRUBERG, JERRY HIGHTS, and SGT. LEVI BRIDGES on COUNT 1
shall proceed.
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants MAJOR MCLAURIN, LT. NANCE,
SGT. SCOTT, MS. MARY, C/O MIKE RICKMAN, C/O GILMORE, SGT. STRUBERG,
JERRY HIGHTS, and SGT. LEVI BRIDGES: (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to
Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons). The Clerk is
DIRECTED to mail these forms, a copy of the complaint, and this Memorandum and Order to each
Defendant’s place of employment as identified by Plaintiff. If a Defendant fails to sign and return
the Waiver of Service of Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the date the forms
were sent, the Clerk shall take appropriate steps to effect formal service on that Defendant, and the
Court will require that Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
With respect to a Defendant who no longer can be found at the work address provided by
Plaintiff, the employer shall furnish the Clerk with the Defendant’s current work address, or, if not
known, the Defendant’s last-known address. This information shall be used only for sending the
Page 5 of 7

forms as directed above or for formally effecting service. Any documentation of the address shall be
retained only by the Clerk. Address information shall not be maintained in the court file or disclosed
by the Clerk.
Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants (or upon defense counsel once an appearance is
entered), a copy of every pleading or other document submitted for consideration by the Court.
Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be filed a certificate stating the date on which a true
and correct copy of the document was served on Defendants or counsel. Any paper received by a
district judge or magistrate judge that has not been filed with the Clerk or that fails to include a
certificate of service will be disregarded by the Court.
Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the
complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g).
Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), this action is REFERRED to United States Magistrate
Judge Wilkerson for further pre-trial proceedings.
Further, this entire matter shall be REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge Wilkerson
for disposition, pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), if all parties consent to
such a referral.
If judgment is rendered against Plaintiff, and the judgment includes the payment of costs
under § 1915, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full amount of the costs, even though his
application to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).
Plaintiff is ADVISED that at the time application was made under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for
leave to commence this civil action without being required to prepay fees and costs or give security
for the same, the applicant and his or her attorney were deemed to have entered into a stipulation that
the recovery, if any, secured in the action shall be paid to the Clerk of the Court, who shall pay
therefrom all unpaid costs taxed against plaintiff and remit the balance to plaintiff. Local Rule
3.1(c)(1).
Page 6 of 7

Finally, Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of
Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than 7 days
after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will cause a
delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action for want of
prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 10, 2014

______________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 7 of 7