United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT United States District Judge
currently incarcerated at Jefferson County Justice Center,
brings this pro se civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff raises claims of deliberate
indifference to medical needs and conditions of confinement
based on incidents that occurred while Plaintiff was detained
at the Jefferson County Jail. The Complaint is now before the
Court for a preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A, which provides:
(a) Screening - The court shall review,
before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as
practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in
which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal - On review, the
court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the
complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint-
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Frivolousness is an
objective standard that refers to a claim that any reasonable
person would find meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209
F.3d 1025, 1026-27 (7th Cir. 2000). An action fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The claim of
entitlement to relief must cross “the line between
possibility and plausibility.” Id. at 557. At
this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se
complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir.
April 27, 2017, while incarcerated at the Jefferson County
Jail, Plaintiff was placed in segregation. (Doc. 1, p. 7).
The entire time Plaintiff was in segregation, he was exposed
to bug infestations and unsanitary conditions that included
exposure to waste water (containing urine and feces) and
black mold. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-8).
segregation cell was infested with bugs and had old food
trays, containing mold and rotten food. (Doc. 1, p. 7). When
Plaintiff attempted to move the food trays, bugs scattered
throughout the cell. Id. The cell included a sink
with a faucet. Id. The water from the faucet was
brown and smelled of rust. Id. Plaintiff asked
“staff” for a new cell and cleaning supplies, but
his requests were denied. Id. The
“staff” indicated they were too busy to assist
7, 2017, presumably while Plaintiff was in the same
segregation cell, Plaintiff's cell was flooded with waste
water containing feces and urine from another cell.
Id. The waste water was coming under Plaintiff's
cell door and up through the toilet. Id. Plaintiff
sought help from “staff.” Id. Plaintiff
was told to place his blanket and sheets on the floor to soak
up the waste water. Id. Later, “staff”
came in and placed more blankets on the floor to soak up the
waste water. Id. Plaintiff was never given any
cleaning supplies to sanitize his cell following the waste
water incident. Id. Additionally, waste water leaked
into his cell on more than one occasion, always with the same
response from jail staff. Id.
spoke directly to Lt. Hanes and, on at least one occasion,
Lt. Hanes inspected the segregation cells and observed the
unsanitary living conditions. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-8). However, Lt.
Hanes took no action to remedy the conditions. Id.
result of these conditions, Plaintiff began to develop a rash
and was suffering mentally. (Doc. 1, p. 8). When Nurse
Shirley was doing rounds, Plaintiff showed her the
rashes he had gotten since living in the cell. Id.
He also spoke to her about his poor mental health.
Id. He indicated he needed treatment, was suffering
from “emergency mental health problems, ” and was
a danger to himself and others. Id. On one occasion,
Plaintiff “wrote down on paper what was happening to
him.” Id. Nurse Shirley did not provide
Plaintiff with any treatment. Id.
Mount and Scott are identified as defendants in the caption
and list of defendants. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-3). However, the body
of the Complaint does not direct any allegations against (or
even mention) either Defendant.
Dismissal of Defendants ...