Graham, Jr v. Watson et al

Filing 38

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 8/17/2016. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TYRONE GRAHAM, Jr., B-90105,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PHILLIP McLAURIN,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-cv-01114-NJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Now before the Court for consideration is the Third Amended Complaint 1 (Doc. 35) filed
by the only plaintiff who remains in this action, Tyrone Graham, Jr. Proceeding pro se,
Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Phillip McLaurin, a major and/or superintendent of St. Clair County Jail (“Jail”) located in
Belleville, Illinois. 2 Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of
confinement at the Jail for a three-week period beginning on August 19, 2015 (Doc. 35, p. 5).
After a light broke in Block AA, all offenders in that cell block were moved into the Jail’s
gymnasium. The living conditions were allegedly deplorable. More than thirty offenders were
forced to sleep in boats on the gym floor. They were required to share a single toilet and eat off
of the gym floor. Plaintiff now names a single defendant, i.e., Superintendent McLaurin, in

1

Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. 36), which this Court
denied on June 17, 2016 (see Doc. 37). Plaintiff used a standard Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to prepare the proposed pleading. Given his use of that form, it was unclear what
course of action he intended to take. The Court provided Plaintiff with a standard civil rights complaint
form for use in preparing and filing a proper Fourth Amended Complaint in this action and set a filing
deadline of July 1, 2016. The Court advised Plaintiff that it would proceed with its preliminary review of
the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 35), if he failed to respond by the deadline (id.). Plaintiff did not
respond. As a result, this screening order focuses on the Third Amended Complaint.
2
For ease of reference, the Court will refer to this defendant as “Superintendent McLaurin” in this Order.
Page 1 of 6

connection with his claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement. He seeks monetary
relief (id. at 6).
The Third Amended Complaint is now subject to preliminary review under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. Under § 1915A, the Court is required to promptly screen prisoner complaints,
including amended 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).
Plaintiff’s unconstitutional conditions of confinement claim (Count 1) shall receive
further review against Superintendent McLaurin. The applicable legal standard for this claim
depends on Plaintiff’s status as an arrestee, pretrial detainee, or a prisoner while he was housed at
the Jail. The Fourth Amendment applies to claims brought by arrestees. The Fourteenth
Amendment governs claims of pretrial detainees, and the Eighth Amendment applies to claims of
inmates. See Rice ex rel. Rice v. Corr. Med. Servs., 675 F.3d 650, 664 (7th Cir. 2012);
Forest v. Prine, 620 F.3d 739, 744-45 (7th Cir. 2010); Klebanowski v. Sheahan, 540 F.3d 633,
637 (7th Cir. 2008). However, the Court frequently looks to case law in the Eighth Amendment
context when analyzing these claims. Id. Because the Third Amended Complaint articulates a
claim under each of these standards, including the most stringent one (i.e., the Eighth
Amendment standard), Count 1 shall receive further review.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Robinson v. California,
370 U.S. 660, 666 (1962); Sellers v. Henman, 41 F.3d 1100, 1102 (7th Cir. 1994). It is applicable
to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. Jail officials violate the Eighth Amendment
when they show deliberate indifference to adverse conditions that deny offenders “the minimal

Page 2 of 6

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, 675 F.3d at 664)). The Seventh Circuit has observed
that “conditions of confinement 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); Murphy v. Walker,
51 F.3d 714, 721 (7th Cir. 1995)). The allegations suggest that the conditions at the Jail may
have violated constitutional norms.
The allegations also suggest that a particular prison official, i.e., Superintendent
McLaurin, had a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298. 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. Farmer, 511 U.S. 837; Wilson, 501 U.S. at 303; Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Del Raine v. Williford, 32 F.3d 1024, 1032 (7th Cir. 1994).
The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to § 1983 actions. Sanville v. McCaughtry,
266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001). To be held individually liable, a defendant must be
“personally responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional right.” Chavez v. Ill. State Police,
251 F.3d 612, 651 (7th Cir. 2001). High-ranking officials can be held liable in their individual
capacities for conditions that are systemic because they are expected to have personal knowledge
of general prison conditions. Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422 (7th Cir. 1996) (citing Doherty
v. City of Chicago, 75 F.3d 318, 326 (7th Cir. 1996)). Superintendent McLaurin is a high-ranking
Jail official, who would be expected to know about the conditions that Plaintiff and thirty or
more other offenders experienced in the Jail’s gymnasium for a three-week period beginning on

Page 3 of 6

August 19, 2015. Under the circumstances, the Third Amended Complaint articulates a viable
claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement against Superintendent McLaurin. Count 1
survives preliminary review.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that COUNT 1 is subject to further review against
Defendant

PHILLIP

McLAURIN.

The

Clerk

of

Court

shall

prepare

for

Defendant McLAURIN: (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 Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 35), and this Memorandum and
Order to Defendant’s place of employment as identified by Plaintiff. If 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 Defendant,
and the Court will require Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent
authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
If the Defendant cannot be found at the 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, nor disclosed by the Clerk.
Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendant (or upon defense counsel once an appearance is
entered), a copy of every further 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 any document was served on Defendant or counsel. Any paper

Page 4 of 6

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.
Defendant is ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the
Third Amended 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.
Further, this entire matter is hereby REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson for disposition, as contemplated by Local Rule 72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c),
should all the 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, notwithstanding that
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).
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

Page 5 of 6

prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 17, 2016
__________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 6 of 6