Smith v. Lakin et al

Filing 6

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 9/1/2015. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ANTWOINE C. SMITH, # 88345,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SHERIFF JOHN LAKIN,
LT. ROBERT HOLLENBACH,
CAPTAIN GARY BOST,
OFFICER MIKE TASSONE,
SGT. PAUL SARHAGE,
OFFICER STEVE RIDINGS,
OFFICER TIM WALKER,
TOM SCMIDT, 1 SGT. FOSTER,
CRAIG REICHART, SGT. DOVER,
DON McNAUGHTON, MIKE HARE,
SGT. MIRAN THOMPSON,
and JOHN NORTON,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 15-cv-00860-NJR

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Plaintiff Antwoine Smith, who is currently detained at Madison County Jail (“Jail”),
brings this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff’s primary complaint is
that Jail officials subjected him to conditions of confinement that violate the Constitution.
He seeks monetary damages.
Merits Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Under § 1915A, the Court is required to promptly screen prisoner

1

This defendant’s name appears to be misspelled in the list of defendants in Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1)
and on the docket sheet. He is referred to as “Tom Scmidt” in both places. Elsewhere, Plaintiff refers to
this defendant as “Tom Schmidt.” For that reason, the Clerk shall be directed to correct the spelling of
this name. This defendant shall be referred to as “Tom Schmidt” from this point going forward.

Page 1 of 10

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, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The complaint survives preliminary review
under this standard.
The Complaint
Plaintiff claims that he was forced to endure a number of unconstitutional conditions in
Housing Unit B-North at the Jail in 2015. These conditions include an ant infestation, multiple
sewer backups, and inadequate nutrition. Plaintiff now sues fifteen Jail officials for monetary
damages under the First, Fifth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
1.

Ant Infestation
Between April 14 and May 11, Housing Unit B-North experienced an ant infestation.

(Doc. 1, p. 9). Plaintiff found it nearly impossible to sleep. As Plaintiff lay in his bed each
night, he was bitten by ants in the neck, face, legs, and back.

On one occasion,

Plaintiff discovered six ants in his mouth when he awoke, and dead ants fell to the floor as he
showered. When he did sleep, Plaintiff dreamed of ants, only to wake up surrounded by them.
His bed became a veritable “torture chamber.”
It is alleged that the defendants knew about the conditions and refused to move the
detainees to a different location. Plaintiff complained directly to Defendants Walker, Schmidt,
Reichart, and Hare.

They laughed at him and called him a baby for complaining about

“something as small as ants.” (Id.).

Page 2 of 10

2.

Sewer Backup
On April 26, the sewers and toilets in Housing Unit B-North backed up. When one toilet

was flushed, another overflowed and spilled large amounts of raw sewage onto the cell floors,
hallways, and walkways. Plaintiff’s cell floor was covered with raw sewage, exposing him to
“feces, urine, saliva, blood, germs, parasites, bacteria,” etc. (Id. at p. 10). The defendants
ignored Plaintiff’s requests to move to another housing unit. Instead, they gave him a mop, a
bucket, and orders to clean up the waste.
A trustee was assigned the task of cleaning the officers’ walkway, which runs alongside
the detainees’ walkway right next to their sleeping quarters. (Id. at pp. 11-12). When the trustee
saw the large amount of raw sewage in the area, he refused to clean it with his dust mop.
The following day, Defendant Hollenbach noticed that raw sewage remained on the officers’
walkway. He swept the waste back onto the detainees’ walkway and into their cells. At the
time, Plaintiff was wearing flip-flops, and human waste got onto his feet, ankles, and pants. 2
Defendant Hollenbach refused to issue the detainees a mop and instead provided them with a
broom, dust pan, gloves, and a trash bag. (Id. at p. 14). They cleaned the area and placed the
waste in a trash bag that sat for thirty hours before Defendant Walker disposed of it.
A second backup occurred on June 14. (Id. at p. 17). The toilets overflowed, and raw
sewage poured into the cells and hallway in Housing Unit B-North. Plaintiff requested gloves,
but he was provided with none. Instead, he was given a mop and told to clean up the mess.
When another detainee asked Defendant Norton if he was going to mop the officers’ walkway,
he said, “I’m sure not.” (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that all of the defendants were aware of the
conditions but took no steps to limit Plaintiff’s contact to raw sewage, by moving him or
cleaning up the waste. (Id. at p. 18).
2

Plaintiff was issued only one pair of pants that was washed once each week.

Page 3 of 10

To date, Plaintiff has not witnessed anyone mop the officers’ walkway with a wet mop.
Consequently, human waste remains in this area. Remnants extend five inches up the walls. The
stench is unbearable.
Plaintiff’s direct contact with human waste caused him to suffer severe stomach pain and
vomit for several days after each backup. The odor has lingered in the cell block for several
months, causing Plaintiff to also suffer from ongoing headaches and stomachaches. (Id. at
p. 11). Plaintiff was never seen by a member of the medical staff following his exposure to the
raw sewage. He was never moved from the contaminated area to a new housing unit. (Id. at
p. 15).
Plaintiff claims that all of the defendants knowingly and willingly exposed him to these
conditions. Plaintiff has complained both verbally and in writing to Defendants Lakin, Bost,
Hollenbach, Walker, Reichart, Schmidt, Tassone, McNaughton, Foster, Thompson, and Dover.
(Id. at pp. 12-15). They ignored him, ridiculed him, or threatened him with solitary confinement.
3.

Inadequate Nutrition
Plaintiff also claims that he has been denied a nutritionally adequate diet since April 11.

(Id. at p. 15). He describes the food portions as “very small.” At times, Plaintiff must wait
fifteen hours between meals. Breakfast consists of one Little Debbie honey bun and a half-pint
of milk. Sometimes, the milk is spoiled. Lunch is the only warm meal served at the Jail each
day, and the portions are “very, very small.” (Id. at p. 16). For dinner, Plaintiff receives a cold
cut sandwich, three small cookies, and a small serving of chips or pretzels.
Because detainees and inmates are hungry, they fight for food or steal it. Plaintiff’s food
has been stolen at least twenty times. (Id. at p. 18). Plaintiff has complained to the defendants,
and to Defendants Lakin, Bost, Hollenbach, Foster, Walker, Hare, and Tassone in particular, but

Page 4 of 10

they simply tell him that it is not their problem, they are not babysitters, or that he should “grow
a pair.” (Id. at p. 16). Plaintiff’s hunger causes emotional distress and prevents him from
sleeping. (Id. at p. 17).
4.

Deprivation of Property
Finally, Plaintiff claims that pretrial detainees are routinely housed with convicted felons.

(Id. at pp. 18-19). These felons, who “are waiting to go to prison[,] have all but taken over
[H]ousing Unit B-North.” Among other things, they steal envelopes, food, shampoo, underwear,
and personal photographs from the pretrial detainees. Plaintiff claims that this arrangement
violates his Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Plaintiff now sues the following Jail officials in connection with the above-described
conditions: John Lakin (sheriff), Robert Hollenbach (lieutenant), Gary Bost (captain),
Paul Sarhage (sergeant), Miran Thompson (sergeant), Sergeant Foster, Sergeant Dover, Mike
Tassone (officer), Steve Ridings (officer), Tim Walker (officer), Tom Schmidt, Craig Reichart,
Don McNaughton, Mike Hare, and John Norton (hereinafter “Correctional Defendants”).
He claims that the Correctional Defendants violated his rights under the First, Fifth, Eighth,
Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments by exposing him to inhumane conditions of
confinement and placing his health and safety at risk. 3 Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.
Discussion
To facilitate the orderly management of future proceedings in this case, and in
accordance with the objectives of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(e) and 10(b), the Court

3

As will be discussed in more detail below, Plaintiff’s claims arise under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The complaint offers no other basis for relief under the First, Fifth, Eighth, or Thirteenth Amendments.
These claims are completely undeveloped and, for that reason, warrant no further discussion. They shall
be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Page 5 of 10

deems it appropriate to reorganize the claims in Plaintiff’s pro se complaint into 3 Counts, as set
forth below.
Count 1:

Correctional Defendants subjected Plaintiff to unsafe and
unsanitary conditions of confinement in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment when they failed to prevent and/or
limit Plaintiff’s exposure to raw sewage and an ant infestation;

Count 2:

Correctional Defendants denied, and continue to deny,
Plaintiff access to reasonable and adequate nutrition in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; and

Count 3:

Correctional Defendants deprived Plaintiff of his property
without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment when they allowed conditions to persist that
caused damage to or theft of Plaintiff’s personal property.

The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless
otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The designation of these counts should not
be construed as an opinion regarding their merit.
Counts 1 & 2 – Conditions of Confinement & Inadequate Nutrition
Plaintiff may proceed with his conditions of confinement claim (Count 1) and his
inadequate nutrition claim (Count 2) against each of the Correctional Defendants. “Incarcerated
persons are entitled to confinement under humane conditions which provide for their ‘basic
human needs.’” Rice ex rel. Rice v. Corr. Med. Servs., 675 F.3d 650, 664 (7th Cir. 2012)
(quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)). The Eighth Amendment proscribes
cruel and unusual punishment against convicted inmates. See Budd v. Motley, 711 F.3d 840, 842
(7th Cir. 2013) (citing Rice ex rel. Rice, 675 F.3d at 664). See also Klebanowski v. Sheahan,
540 F.3d 633, 637 (7th Cir. 2008). But because Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee, his right to be
confined under humane conditions is derived from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Id.

Page 6 of 10

To state a claim challenging the conditions of confinement, a pretrial detainee must first
allege that he has been subjected to adverse conditions that deny “the minimal civilized measure
of life’s necessities.” Budd, 711 F.3d at 842 (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)). This analysis examines
whether the conditions of confinement exceeded the contemporary bounds of decency of a
mature civilized society. Id. Jail conditions that deprive inmates of basic human needs—food,
medical care, sanitation, or physical safety—may violate constitutional norms. Rhodes, 452 U.S.
337, 346 (1981); see also James v. Milwaukee Cnty., 956 F.2d 696, 699 (7th Cir. 1992).
In addition, a detainee must allege that defendants “purposely or knowingly” acted (or failed to
act) or acted with criminal recklessness to create the conditions. See Kingsley v. Hendrickson,
No. 14–6368, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473 (June 22, 2015).
The allegations suggest the Correctional Defendants may have violated Plaintiff’s rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment by subjecting him to inhumane conditions of confinement
(Count 1) and inadequate nutrition (Count 2) at the Jail. Accordingly, Counts 1 and 2 against
the Correctional Defendants shall receive further review.
Count 3 – Property Claim
Plaintiff’s claim for the deprivation of his property (Count 3) is subject to dismissal,
even at this early stage. To state a claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, Plaintiff must establish a deprivation of liberty or property without due process of
law; if the state provides an adequate remedy, Plaintiff has no civil rights claim. Hudson v.
Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530-36 (1984) (availability of damages remedy in state claims court is an
adequate, post-deprivation remedy). The Seventh Circuit has found that Illinois provides an

Page 7 of 10

adequate post-deprivation remedy in an action for damages in the Illinois Court of Claims.
Murdock v. Washington, 193 F.3d 510, 513 (7th Cir. 1999); Stewart v. McGinnis, 5 F.3d 1031,
1036 (7th Cir. 1993); 705 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 505/8 (1995). Therefore, Plaintiff cannot seek
damages in federal court for the loss of his property, and Count 3 shall be dismissed with
prejudice. Plaintiff may seek redress for his economic loss in state court, however, provided that
he files his state action in accordance with the applicable rules and deadlines. The dismissal of
this civil rights action shall not operate as a bar to Plaintiff bringing a property claim in the
Illinois Court of Claims.
Disposition
The CLERK is hereby DIRECTED to change the spelling of “Tom Scmidt” to
“Tom Schmidt” on the docket sheet in CM/ECF. Until further notice, this defendant shall be
referred to as “Tom Schmidt.”
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that COUNT 3 is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims that Plaintiff asserted under the FIRST,
FIFTH, EIGHTH, and THIRTEENTH AMENDMENTS are DIMISSED without prejudice
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
With respect to COUNTS 1 and 2, which are subject to further review against all of the
defendants, the Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants JOHN LAKIN, ROBERT
HOLLENBACH, GARY BOST, MIKE TASSONE, PAUL SARHAGE, STEVE RIDINGS,
TIM WALKER, TOM SCHMIDT, CRAIG REICHART, SERGEANT FOSTER,
SERGEANT DOVER, DON McNAUGHTON, MIRAN THOMPSON, MIKE HARE, and
JIM NORTON: (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons),

Page 8 of 10

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 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 Donald G. Wilkerson for further pre-trial proceedings.

Page 9 of 10

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).
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: September 1, 2015
___________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 10 of 10