McCants v. Wardlow
Filing
16
OPINION AND ORDER: The court GRANTS Keith R. McCants leave to proceed against Major D. Wardlow in his individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages for being deliberately indifferent to a cockroach and mouse infestation in his cell at the Indiana State Prison in violation of the Eighth Amendment; DISMISSES all other claims; DIRECTS the clerk, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), to request Waiver of Service from (and if necessary, the United States Marshals Service to use any lawf ul means to locate and serve process on) Major D. Wardlow at the Indiana Department of Correction, with a copy of this order and the complaint 8 ; ORDERS the Indiana Department of Correction to provide the full name, date of birth, and last know n home address of any defendant who does not waive service if it has such information; and ORDERS, under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), Major D. Wardlow to respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claims for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order. Signed by Judge Damon R Leichty on 5/9/2024. (sej)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
KEITH R. McCANTS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAUSE NO. 3:23-CV-746-DRL-MGG
D. WARDLOW,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Keith R. McCants, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed an amended complaint
alleging he was housed in unconstitutional conditions at the Indiana State Prison. ECF 8.
“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however
inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted
by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotations and citations omitted).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court still must review the merits of a prisoner complaint
and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant.
Mr. McCants alleges Major D. Wardlow was deliberately indifferent to the
unconstitutional conditions of his cell. He alleges Major Wardlow had actual knowledge
that he was living in a cell infested with cockroaches, mice, and their excrement. He
alleges these conditions caused him to suffer bug bites, breathing problems, severe
headaches, chest pain, itching, dizziness, and scars.
The Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to “provide humane conditions
of confinement[.]” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). In evaluating an Eighth
Amendment claim, courts conduct both an objective and a subjective inquiry. Id. at 834.
The objective prong asks whether the alleged deprivation is “sufficiently serious” that
the action or inaction of a prison official leads to “the denial of the minimal civilized
measure of life’s necessities.” Id. (citations omitted). Although “the Constitution does not
mandate comfortable prisons,” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981), inmates are
entitled to adequate food, clothing, shelter, bedding, hygiene materials, and
sanitation, Knight v. Wiseman, 590 F.3d 458, 463 (7th Cir. 2009). On the subjective prong,
the prisoner must show the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to the inmate’s
health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. “[C]onduct is deliberately indifferent when the
official has acted in an intentional or criminally reckless manner, i.e., the defendant must
have known that the plaintiff was at serious risk of being harmed and decided not to do
anything to prevent that harm from occurring even though he could have easily done
so.” Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 478 (7th Cir. 2005) (citations and quotations
omitted); see also Reed v. McBride, 178 F.3d 849, 855 (7th Cir. 1999) (when inmate
complained about severe deprivations but was ignored, he established a “prototypical
case of deliberate indifference.”). The allegations in this complaint state a claim against
Major Wardlow.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS Keith R. McCants leave to proceed against Major D. Wardlow in his
individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages for being deliberately
2
indifferent to a cockroach and mouse infestation in his cell at the Indiana State Prison in
violation of the Eighth Amendment;
(2) DISMISSES all other claims;
(3) DIRECTS the clerk, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), to request Waiver of Service from
(and if necessary, the United States Marshals Service to use any lawful means to locate
and serve process on) Major D. Wardlow at the Indiana Department of Correction, with
a copy of this order and the complaint (ECF 8);
(4) ORDERS the Indiana Department of Correction to provide the full name, date
of birth, and last known home address of any defendant who does not waive service if it
has such information; and
(5) ORDERS, under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), Major D. Wardlow to respond, as
provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to
the claims for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening
order.
SO ORDERED.
May 9, 2024
s/ Damon R. Leichty
Judge, United States District Court
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?