The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge
The five Defendants remaining in this action, Robert Smithson, James Bernard, Benny Dallas, Paul Siepp and Jeremy Anderson, have filed a "Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment" (Doc. 257). Plaintiff Fabian Santiago ("Santiago") has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as well (Doc. 260). Both motions have been fully briefed by the parties (Docs. 262, 267, 268 and 270), and the Court now rules as follows.
At this juncture, only the following claims remain:
Count 5: On September 5, 2003, while Santiago was housed at Pontiac Correctional Center, Defendant Anderson imposed cruel and unusual conditions of confinement upon Santiago, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. C/O Anderson allegedly moved Santiago into a cell that was "covered in excrement and reeked an unb[e]arable stench and had a def[e]cated and urine stained mattress." Santiago asked for a new mattress and that the cell be cleaned or that he be provided cleaning supplies, but his requests were denied. Despite numerous grievances, Santiago was forced to endure these conditions for two months.
Count 8: (a) On August 26, 2004, while Santiago was housed at Menard Correctional Center, Defendants Smithson, Bernard, Dallas and Siepp conducted a shake down of Santiago's cell, tearing Santiago's cell apart and leaving "property all over the floor," and they harshly cuffed him, all in retaliation for Santiago exercising rights under the First Amendment; and (b) Defendant Anderson subjected Santiago to cruel and unusual conditions of confinement on September 5, 2003 (as alleged in Count 5 above), in retaliation for Santiago exercising his rights under the First Amendment.
The Defendants argue that:
1. Defendant Anderson is entitled to summary judgment on the retaliation claim lodged against him in Count 8 (regarding the incident alleged in Count 5) because Santiago cannot establish "but for" causation; and
2. Defendants Smithson, Bernard, Siepp and Dallas are entitled to summary judgment on the retaliation claim lodged against them in Count 8 because there is no evidence that shows protected speech was the reason for Defendants' alleged conduct (Doc. 257).
1. He is entitled to judgment on Count 5 as a matter of law because his evidence establishes a prima facie Eighth Amendment "conditions of confinement" violation;
2. He is entitled to judgment on all aspects of Count 8 as a matter of law because his evidence establishes a prima facie case of retaliation in ...