Morrow et al v. Baldwin et al

Filing 85

ORDER granting 63 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to correct the docket sheet to reflect the complete and correct spellings of Defendants names. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 10/7/2020. (ksp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SEAN WILKINS, #B76693,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOHN BALDWIN,
SALVADOR GODINEZ,
MICHAEL RANDLE,
ROBERT MUELLER,
GLADYSE TAYLOR,
RICHARD MAUTINO, and
MATTHEW POGUE, 1
Defendants.

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

Case No. 18-cv-00471-SMY

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff Sean Wilkins, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”), filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Defendants demonstrated
deliberate indifference to his health and safety by serving juice drinks containing ingredients that
could produce benzene as a byproduct. The case is now before the Court on Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc. 63). For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.
Procedural Background
Defendants filed a joint motion for summary judgment on December 9, 2019. (Doc. 63).
That same day, they filed a “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 Notice” advising Plaintiff of

1

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to correct the docket sheet to reflect the complete and correct spellings of
Defendants’ names.

1

consequences of failing to respond to the motion. (Doc. 65). Plaintiff had 30 days to file a
response. See SDIL-LR 7.1(c)(1).
On January 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file a
response to Defendants’ motion on January 28, 2020 (Doc. 72), which the Court granted. (Doc.
73). The Court subsequently granted his second and third requests for additional time to file a
response. (Docs. 75, 76, 78, 80). The Court then advised Plaintiff that an additional extension
would not be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. (Docs. 76, 80). On July 20, 2020, more
than 7 months after the motion for summary judgment was filed, Plaintiff filed another motion
seeking an extension. (Doc. 82). The motion was denied for lack of good cause. (Doc. 83). 2
Factual Background
Plaintiff claims that juice drinks distributed to IDOC prisons by the Illinois Correctional
Industry (“ICI”) and served to inmates contain sodium benzoate, ascorbic acid, citric acid, and
erythorbic acid, which when combined, can produce benzene, a known carcinogen that can cause
cancer (Doc. 1). He alleges he consumed the allegedly contaminated juice drinks for several years
during his confinement at Big Muddy River Correctional Center and Centralia Correctional Center
(where he worked in the dietary departments), and as a result, experienced blood in his stool,
chronic headaches, diarrhea, stomach irritation, and fatigue. He sought medical treatment at both
prisons and was eventually diagnosed with colitis.

2

The Court’s Order denying Plaintiff’s fourth motion for extension of time and the Order dismissing Unknown Party
#2, John/Jane Doe Wardens, were returned as undeliverable. (Doc. 84). It appears Plaintiff has moved from Vienna
Correctional Center and has not fulfilled his obligation to keep the Court and opposing parties informed of any change
in his address. (See Doc. 10, p. 19).

2

Following the Court’s review of the Complaint, Plaintiff is proceeded on the following
claims:
Count 1:

Eighth Amendment claim against Mautino and Pogue 3 for deliberate
indifference to the present and future health risks to Plaintiff from
consuming juice drinks that contain ingredients that may produce
benzene;

Count 2:

Eighth Amendment claim against Baldwin, Godinez, Taylor, and
Randle for deliberate indifference to the present and future health
risks to Plaintiff from consuming ICI-produced juice drinks that
contain ingredients that may produce benzene; and

Count 3:

Eighth Amendment claim against Mueller for deliberate
indifference to the present and future health risks to Plaintiff from
consuming ICI-produced juice drinks that contain ingredients that
may produce benzene.

(Doc. 10).
Discussion
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P.
56(a). A genuine issue of material fact remains “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury
could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
248 (1986). Accord Bunn v. Khoury Enterpr., Inc., 753 F.3d 676, 681-682 (7th Cir. 2014). 4

3
Unknown parties #1 and #3 were later identified by Plaintiff as ICI Officials Rich Mautino and Matthew Pogue.
(Docs. 43, 44).
4

Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment despite having more than seven months to do so.
Pursuant to Rule 56, “[i]f a party fails ... to properly address another party’s assertion of fact” the Court may “consider
the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Thus, exercising its discretion to do so, the
Court deems each of the material facts proffered by Defendants undisputed. See e.g., Xavier v. Myers, No. 19-cv00788-JPG, 2020 WL 5095242, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 28, 2020)(“The Court deems all material facts undisputed because
Plaintiff failed to file a response to the pending motion for summary judgment by the original deadline (April 20,
2020) or extended (July 6, 2020) deadline.”).

3

The Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment forbids the
unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346
(1981)(citation omitted). To succeed on a claim related to conditions of confinement, a plaintiff
must first prove that the conditions at issue resulted in an unquestioned and serious deprivation of
basic human needs such as food, medical care, sanitation, or physical safety. See Rhodes, 452 U.S.
at 347. In other words, the Eighth Amendment “does not require prisons to provide prisoners with
more salubrious air, healthier food, or cleaner water than are enjoyed by substantial numbers of
free Americans.” Carroll v. DeTella, 255 F.3d 470, 472 (7th Cir. 2001).
Assuming the plaintiff clears this hurdle, he or she must also satisfy the subjective
component of an unconstitutional conditions of confinement claim by proving that a defendant
acted with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmate. See Farmer,
511 U.S. at 837, 842. A plaintiff satisfies the deliberate indifference standard by showing that a
prison official acted, or failed to act, despite the official's knowledge of a substantial risk of serious
harm from the alleged unconstitutional conditions. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842; Davidson v.
Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 347-348 (1986).
Here, there is no evidence that Defendants knew of any potential hazard posed by serving
juice to inmates, including Plaintiff. Through declarations, Defendants Godinez, Randle, Taylor,
and Baldwin state that they were not made aware of any potential issues with the juice produced
by ICI or complaints made by Plaintiff. (Docs. 64-2, 64-3, 68, 69). Similarly, Defendants Mautino
and Pogue, who work for ICI, state that they were never made aware of any complaints by Plaintiff
about the juice or his health issues. (Docs.64-5, 64-6). See Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F. 3d 950, 954
(7th Cir. 2011) (“a declaration under § 1746 is equivalent to an affidavit for purposes of summary
judgment”); 28 U.S.C. § 1746. And, during his deposition, Plaintiff acknowledged that he had no
4

evidence proving or suggesting that Defendants Baldwin, Godinez, Randle, Taylor, Mautino, or
Pogue where aware of his health complaints. (Doc. 64-1, pp. 18, 19, 21, 22, 24).
Only Defendant Mueller, who was the warden at Centralia Correctional Center, knew that
Plaintiff was suffering health issues and attributed his condition to the juice being served at the
facility. His knowledge was through grievances Plaintiff filed on July 5, 2017 and July 17, 2017.
(Doc. 1, p. 11-18; Doc. 64-4, p. 1). The grievances were investigated, and the grievance officer
recommended that the grievances be denied because the food is purchased through IDOC contracts
and regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). The grievance officer also found no
evidence that the food served was harmful. Warden Mueller concurred with the grievance officer’s
findings and recommendations and denied the grievance. (Doc. 1, p. 13). There is no evidence that
Warden Mueller was aware of any substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff’s health caused by
the juice being served and then failed to act. Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to summary
judgment on each of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims (Counts 1, 2, and 3).
Conclusion
For the forgoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 63) is
GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants
John Baldwin, Salvador Godinez, Michael Randle, Robert Mueller, Gladyse Taylor, Richard
Mautino, and Matthew Pogue and against Plaintiff Sean Wilkins, and to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 7, 2020
s/ Staci M. Yandle_____
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

5