Tolbert v. Foster et al

Filing 6

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 5/13/2016. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMES TOLBERT,
#R-23091,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CRAIG FOSTER
and C/O SLAGLE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-cv-00429-MJR

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff James Tolbert, who is currently incarcerated at Vandalia Correctional Center
(“Vandalia”), brings this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two Vandalia
officials, Warden Foster and C/O Slagle. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff claims that these officials have
subjected him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement at Vandalia since August 27, 2015,
in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. (Id. at 5). He now sues both defendants
for monetary damages. (Id. at 6).
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

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.
Page 1 of 7

The Complaint
Plaintiff claims that he has endured unconstitutional conditions of confinement in
Vandalia’s H-Dorm since August 27, 2015. (Doc. 1, pp. 5, 11-12). These conditions include a
lack of hot water, holes in the ceiling, leaks, and mold. Plaintiff describes the conditions as
“slippery, dangerous, and hazardous.” (Id. at 5).
1.

Lack of Hot Water
According to the complaint, no hot water is available in H-dorm. (Doc. 1, pp. 5, 11-12).

The dorm has two community sinks.

Only one works, and it provides cold water.

Plaintiff notified prison officials about the problem during the winter. His complaints fell on
deaf ears.
2.

Holes in Ceiling
The ceiling in H-Dorm is in a constant state of disrepair. (Id.). The ceiling has three

large holes in it. Unidentified debris falls through the holes or from other areas of the ceiling
regularly. Plaintiff has been hit in the head by this debris, and it has also fallen into his food.
3.

Leaks and Mold
Water leaks through the holes in the ceiling onto the floor. (Id.). Leaky plumbing causes

additional water to accumulate on the floors near the sinks and toilets. Plaintiff complains that
puddles on the floors create slippery and hazardous conditions. Plaintiff and other inmates
regularly slip on the floors. Moreover, the excess moisture has caused mold to grow near the
showers and the television. (Id. at 5).
Plaintiff has notified several prison officials about the above-described conditions, but
they have taken no action to address them. These officials include Warden Foster, C/O Slagle,
Lieutenant Gephart, and an unknown sergeant.

Plaintiff now sues two of these officials,

Page 2 of 7

i.e., Warden Foster and C/O Slagle, for subjecting him to constitutionally objectionable
conditions. He 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
deems it appropriate to organize the claims in Plaintiff’s pro se complaint into a single count.
Count 1:

Warden Foster and C/O Slagle subjected Plaintiff to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement in H-Dorm, in
violation of the Eighth Amendment, when they ignored his
requests for hot water, repair of three larges holes in the
ceiling, repair of leaky plumbing, and mold remediation.

The parties and the Court will use this designation in all future pleadings and orders,
unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The designation of this count should
not be construed as an opinion regarding its merit.
Plaintiff may proceed with his conditions of confinement claim (Count 1) against both
defendants. 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 v. Corr.
Med. Servs., 675 F.3d 650, 664 (7th Cir. 2012)).

“Incarcerated persons are entitled to

confinement under humane conditions which provide for their ‘basic human needs.’” Rice ex
rel. Rice, 675 F.3d at 664 (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)).
Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment when they show deliberate indifference 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 (citation omitted)). Life’s necessities include
adequate shelter and heat. Gillis v. Litscher, 468 F.3d 488, 493 (7th Cir. 2006); Dixon v.
Godinez, 114 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 1997).

Page 3 of 7

Standing alone, each of the conditions described in the complaint do not necessarily
violate the Eighth Amendment. Even so, 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)). For example, the absence of hot water may not support an Eighth Amendment
claim, unless it is in combination with another deprivation such as the presence of cold cells.
See, e.g., Hopkins v. Klindworth, 556 F. App’x 497, 499 (7th Cir. 2014) (district court properly
dismissed claim that absence of hot water in cell violated Eighth Amendment); Lopez v.
Robinson, 914 F.2d 486, 492 (4th Cir. 1990) (“[I]t suffices to say that there is no clearly
established, sufficiently contoured, right to hot showers in prison.”). But see Dixon, 114 F.3d at
643 (“[M]ost successful Eighth Amendment claims often involve allegations of cold in
conjunction with other serious problems.”) (citing Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559 (10th Cir.
1980) (cold, defective plumbing, excessive mold and fungus, and pest infestation). See also
Gillis v. Litscher, 468 F.3d at 493 (citing Ramos, 639 F.2d at 568 (“[A] state must provide . . .
reasonably adequate ventilation, sanitation, bedding, hygienic materials, and utilities (i.e., hot
and cold water, light, heat, plumbing).”). The conditions described in the complaint at least
suggest that the conditions, when considered in combination or alone, may have violated the
Eighth Amendment. But this is not the end of the analysis.
The allegations must also suggest that a particular prison official 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

Page 4 of 7

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 complaint supports a deliberate indifference claim against Warden Foster and
C/O Slagle at this stage. Plaintiff alleges that he notified each of these defendants, and others, 1
about the conditions in H-Dorm. He asked them to address the problems. However, his requests
were ignored. Given these allegations, the Court cannot dismiss Count 1 against Warden Foster
and C/O Slagle at this time.
Pending Motion
Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 3) is hereby REFERRED to United States
Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams for a decision.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that COUNT 1 is subject to further review against
Defendants WARDEN FOSTER and C/O SLAGLE.
With respect to COUNT 1, the Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants
WARDEN FOSTER and C/O SLAGLE: (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,
1

Plaintiff mentioned other prison officials in his statement of claim, including Lieutenant Gephart and an
unknown sergeant. However, he listed neither individual as a defendant in the case caption or in his list
of defendants. When parties are not listed in the caption, this Court will not treat them as defendants, and
any claims against them should be considered dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a)
(noting that the title of the complaint “must name all the parties”); Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551,
551-52 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding that to be properly considered a party, a defendant must be “specif]ied] in
the caption”).
Page 5 of 7

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 Stephen C. Williams for further pre-trial proceedings, including a decision on Plaintiff’s
Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 3).
Further, this entire matter shall be REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge
Williams 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.

Page 6 of 7

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: May 13, 2016
s/ MICHAEL J. REAGAN
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 7 of 7