United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
James Owens, an inmate in Lawrence Correctional Center,
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
deprivations of his constitutional rights. In his Complaint,
Plaintiff claims the defendants subjected him to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of
the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1). This case is now before the
Court for a preliminary review of the Complaint 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.
careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to allow this case to proceed
past the threshold stage.
Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff makes the following
allegations: over the span of 17 months, Plaintiff repeatedly
requested to have a leak in the wall between his cell and a
shower to be fixed, or to be moved to a cell that has no
leak. (Doc. 1, p. 4). His requests were denied. Id.
More specifically, on March 5, 2016, Plaintiff was moved to a
cell where he found the wall between his cell and the shower
leaked, causing water to collect on his cell floor.
Id. Because Plaintiff is wheelchair bound, and he
had to wheel through the water on the floor of his cell, his
hands would become covered in water that had “been in
contact with other inmates' bodily fluids which caused
[him] to have bouts of diarrhea and constipation, as well as
a general lack of energy and psychological stress.”
March 15, 2016, “after repeatedly requesting a work
order be placed to repair [the leak] to [his] wing officers
and the cell house lieutenants, ” Plaintiff sent a
request to Defendant Strubhart asking for the leak to be
fixed. Id. On March 18, 2016, Strubhart responded
that the work order was submitted and that they were waiting
on maintenance to fix it. Id. On April 17, 2016,
Plaintiff sent another request to Strubhart and to the
maintenance department requesting that the leak be fixed, as
it had not been repaired yet. (Doc. 1, pp. 4-5). On May 8,
2016, Plaintiff filed a grievance concerning the leak. (Doc.
1, p. 5). On May 9, 2016, Strubhart responded, stating
“he spoke to the plumber [defendant John Doe] by phone
and was told that due to budgetary problems we do not have
the supplies needed to repair the leak.” Id.
13, 2016, Plaintiff sent the grievance to the grievance
officer. Id. On October 14, 2016, he sent it to the
Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) after he did
not receive a response from the grievance officer.
Id. On October 25, 2016, Sarah Johnson of the ARB
refused the grievance. Id. On May 21, 2016,
Plaintiff spoke to Warden Duncan concerning the leak, and he
stated he would look into it. Id. On May 23, 2016,
Plaintiff spoke again with Strubhart about it not having been
3, 2016, Plaintiff filed another grievance concerning the
leak, “as there was now a leak coming from the plumbing
closet in addition to the leak from the shower, ” and
Plaintiff was concerned the plumbing closet leak was sewage.
Id. Plaintiff received no response, so he sent the
grievance to the ARB on October 14, 2016. Id. As of
the date the Complaint was filed, Plaintiff had not received
a response from the ARB to his second grievance. Id.
7, 2016, Plaintiff spoke to Strubhart about the leak not
being fixed. Id. On August 3 and 12, 2016, Plaintiff
sent requests to Defendant AWO Goings requesting an interview
to discuss the leak, but he never received a response.
Id. On November 21, 2016, Plaintiff sent a request
to his new counselor, Jackman, requesting the leak be fixed.
Id. On December 18, 2016, Plaintiff sent an
emergency grievance to Defendant Warden Lamb concerning the
leak still not being fixed. Id. He also sent it to
the ARB on March 11, 2017, as he had not yet received a
response from Lamb. Id. On March 15, 2016, Ann Lahr
of the ARB refused the grievance “as PTF.”
Id. On February 10, ...