United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
Antoine L. Moore (#B-68521), Plaintiff,
Michael Lemke, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JOHNSON COLEMAN United States District Court Judge
Antoine Moore, an Illinois state prisoner, has brought this
pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Michael Lemke,
the former Warden of the Stateville Correctional Center,
violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights by subjecting
him to cruel and unusual conditions of confinement. More
specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he was forced to live in
filthy and sometimes overcrowded conditions during the
nineteen days or so that he spent in Stateville's
Northern Reception and Classification Center. This matter is
before the Court for ruling on Defendant's motion for
summary judgment. For the following reasons, the motion is
Summary Judgment Standard
Court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Hanover Ins. Co. v. Northern Bldg.
Co., 751 F.3d 788, 791 (7th Cir. 2014). In determining
whether there are factual questions, the Court must view all
the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party. Weber v. Univ.
Research Assoc., Inc., 621 F.3d 589, 592 (7th Cir.
2010). The Court does not “judge the credibility of the
witnesses, evaluate the weight of the evidence, or determine
the truth of the matter. The only question is whether there
is a genuine issue of fact.” Gonzalez v. City of
Elgin, 578 F.3d 526, 529 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 249-50
survive summary judgment, the nonmoving party must make a
sufficient showing of evidence for each essential element of
his case on which he bears the burden at trial. Kampmier
v. Emeritus Corp., 472 F.3d 930, 936-937 (7th Cir. 2007)
(citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23). “Where
the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier
of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine
issue for trial.” Blythe Holdings, Inc. v.
DeAngelis, 750 F.3d 653, 656 (7th Cir. 2014) (citations
omitted). “A genuine issue of material fact arises only
if sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party exists to
permit a jury to return a verdict for that party.”
Egonmwan v. Cook County Sheriff's Dept., 602
F.3d 845, 849 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting Faas v. Sears,
Roebuck & Co., 532 F.3d 633, 640-41 (7th Cir.
Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 56.1
the Local Rules of the Northern District of Illinois, a party
filing a motion for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56
must serve and file ‘a statement of material facts as
to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue
and that entitle the moving party to a judgment as a matter
of law.'” Judson Atkinson Candies, Inc. v.
Latini-Hohberger Dhimantec, 529 F.3d 371, 382 (7th Cir.
2008) (quoting Koszola v. Bd. of Educ. of City of
Chicago, 385 F.3d 1104, 1107-08 (7th Cir. 2004)). The
opposing party must then “file ‘a response to
each numbered paragraph in the moving party's statement,
including, in the case of any disagreement, specific
references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other
supporting materials relied upon.'” Cracco v.
Vitran Exp., Inc., 559 F.3d 625, 632 (7th Cir. 2009)
(citing N.D.Ill. R. 56.1(b)(3)(B)); Fabiyi v.
McDonald's Corp., No. 11 CV 8085, 2014 WL 985415, at
*1 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 13, 2014) (Kim, Mag. J.)
(aff'd 595 F. App'x 621 (7th Cir. 2014)).
The opposing party may also present a separate statement of
additional facts that requires the denial of summary
judgment. See Ciomber v. Coop. Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d
635, 643-44 (7th Cir. 2008). A plaintiff's pro
se status does not excuse him from complying with these
rules. Morrow v. Donahoe, 564 F. App'x 859, 860
(7th Cir. 2014) (unpublished opinion) (citing Pearle
Vision, Inc. v. Romm, 541 F.3d 751, 758 (7th Cir. 2008)
with the Local Rules, Defendant filed a Statement of Material
Facts along with his motion for summary judgment.
(See Dkt. No. 48, Defts. Stmt. of Facts.) Each
substantive assertion of fact in Defendant's Local Rule
56.1(a)(3) Statement is supported by evidentiary material in
the record. Also in accordance with the Local Rules,
Defendant filed and served on Plaintiff a Local Rule 56.2
Notice, which explains in detail the requirements of Local
Rule 56.1. (See Dkt. No. 50, “Notice to Pro Se
Litigant Opposing Motion for Summary Judgment.”)
has submitted multiple documents in response to
Defendant's motion for summary judgment; however, he has
failed to specifically respond to Defendant's Statement
of Uncontested Facts, to include his own Statement of
Additional Facts, or to provide a list of disputed facts that
require a trial to resolve. Because Plaintiff has failed to
controvert Defendant's facts, the Court may deem those
facts admitted for summary judgment purposes. See, e.g.,
Apex Digital, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 735 F.3d
962, 965 (7th Cir. 2013); Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d
680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003). Indeed, Plaintiff does not contest
the essential facts underlying this opinion; he disputes only
whether Lemke can be held liable under the circumstances of
this case. Accordingly, the following facts, all supported by
the record, are undisputed for purposes of the summary
Antoine Moore is an inmate in the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections (hereinafter, “IDOC”).
(Defendant's Statement of Facts, ¶ 1.) Upon his
admission to IDOC custody, Plaintiff was placed at
Stateville's Northern Reception and Classification Center
(“NRC”) for about nineteen days, from May 30,
2014, to June 18, 2014. (Id., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff
challenges several aspects of the conditions of his
confinement at Stateville NRC. (Id., ¶¶
arrival at Stateville NRC, Plaintiff was initially housed in
a “medical room” along with eight other men.
(Id., ¶ 6.) The medical room was located in the
health care unit. (Id.) The room had a shower,
toilet, and sink. (Id.) Correctional officials
furnished Plaintiff with a “tub boat raft”-like
mattress, a blanket, a jumpsuit, over-sized boxers, state
shoes, a toothbrush, soap, toothpaste, and deodorant.
(Id., ¶ 7.) The toilet in the medical room was
functional and it flushed, but there was built-up mold and
mildew on the fixture. (Id., ¶ 8.)
1, 2014 (about three days later), Plaintiff was transferred
to a regular cell. (Id., ¶ 10.) Plaintiff
maintains that neither the lights nor the call button in the
cell worked, the cell's floor was dirty and trash-strewn,
the toilet was “filthy with mold and stuff, ” and
the sink was “nasty, ” with built-up dirt and
mold. (Id.) Although the cell had no interior
lights, Plaintiff was still able to read his Bible with
ambient light. The cell had a functioning toilet, and
Plaintiff's bed had a mattress. (Id.) Plaintiff
requested cleaning supplies, but no one ever provided any
means for him to scrub down his cell. (Id.,
17, 2014, Plaintiff was moved out of his cell and placed in a
bullpen along with fifty other men. (Id., ¶
11.) The bullpen reeked of urine, birds flew about, and
cockroaches and other bugs were ...