United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT
E. SHADID UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a pro se prisoner, filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging inhumane conditions of confinement at
the Hill Correctional Center (“Hill”). Defendants
IDOC, Warden Akpore, Berry Bankert, and Unknown Employee were
DISMISSED at merit review, with Defendant Adam Morrow
remaining. Defendant has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
[ECF 45], to which Plaintiff has responded. For the reasons
indicated herein, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
alleges that on September 2, 2012, he was confined at Hill
and placed in segregation cell #19 in which the light was not
working, water was leaking onto the floor and a piece of
metal protruded from the floor. Plaintiff walked with a cane
which was taken when he was placed in segregation. Plaintiff
allegedly had to hop about the cell. Plaintiff complained of
the conditions to Defendant Morrow that same day. Plaintiff
testified at his deposition that Defendant gave him a mop and
told him he would put in a work order for the leak to be
fixed. Plaintiff claims that later, he was given towels to
soak up the water.
asserts that he made daily complaints to Defendant Morrow.
Plaintiff testified that Defendant told him he had
“personally” placed the work order in the
maintenance mail box on September 7, 2012. Defendant
allegedly submitted another work order on September 12, 2012.
On September 22, 2012, the conditions remained uncorrected
and Plaintiff fell, allegedly after his pant leg became
caught on the metal piece protruding from the floor. This
caused further injury to Plaintiff's knee, requiring
treatment in the Health Care Unit.
Morrow asserts that the complained-of conditions are not
serious enough to implicate constitutional protections. He
asserts, further, that he was not deliberately indifferent as
he filled out a work order to have the conditions corrected.
Defendant explains that, as a corrections officer, he is not
to fix such conditions himself. Rather, he is to fill out a
work order and place it in the maintenance department mail
has provided the sworn affidavit of Doug Sanford, Pontiac
Chief Engineer. Mr. Sanford corroborates that officers are
not allowed to make repairs in cells. They are to submit a
work order and place it in the maintenance mail box. The work
order is reviewed by the Supervisor of the area where the
work is to occur. If approved by the Supervisor, it is
forwarded to the Chief Engineer for review. If the Chief
Engineer approves the request, the order is logged, numbered,
prioritized and distributed. [ECF 46-1 p. 15]. The priority
the Chief Engineer attaches to the request is then subject to
review by the Chief Administrative Officer or the Assistant
Warden or Assistant Supervisor of Operations. See
Affidavit of Christopher McLaughlin, Assistant Warden of
Operations. [ECF 46-1 p. 14].
September 22, 2012, Plaintiff filled out a grievance
complaining that he fell due to water and the protruding
metal piece. The matter was reviewed by Plaintiff's
counselor who replied on September 25, 2012. The Counselor
apparently spoke with Defendant Morrow who reiterated that he
had personally placed the work order in the maintenance
department mail box. [ECF 49 p. 15].
parties agree that the water leak and light were repaired on
September 25, 2012. Chief Engineer Doug Sanford attests that
the work orders are only kept for three years and they no
longer have a copy of the orders Defendant submitted. Mr.
Sanford has, however, provided a copy of the work order log.
It documents that a work order for the water leak was logged
on September 22, 2012, and a work order for the light was
logged on September 24, 2012. The log corroborates that the
repairs were made on September 25, 2012. [ECF 46-1 p.16].
parties do not discuss any work order slip regarding the
protruding metal piece and Defendant denies that this
condition existed. He points to the Injury Report which
records Plaintiff giving a history of slipping on water,
without mention of the metal piece.
judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
if entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 7477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The moving party
has the burden of providing proper documentary evidence to
show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Id. 323-24. Once the moving party has met its
burden, the opposing party must come forward with specific
evidence, not mere allegations or denials of the pleadings,
which demonstrates that there is a genuine issue for trial.
Gracia v. Volvo Europa Truck, N.V., 112 F.3d 291,
294 (7th Cir. 1997). “[A] party moving for summary
judgment can prevail just by showing that the other party has
no evidence on an issue on which that party has the burden of
proof.” Brazinski v. Amoco Petroleum Additives
Co., 6 F.3d 1176, 1183(7th Cir. 1993).
the non-movant cannot rest on the pleadings alone, but must
designate specific facts in affidavits, depositions, answers
to interrogatories or admissions that establish that there is
a genuine triable issue; he “must do more than simply
show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material
fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 256-57 (1986)(quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus.
Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986));
Hot Wax, Inc. v. Turtle Wax, Inc., 191 F.3d 813, 818
(7th Cir. 1999). Finally, a scintilla of evidence in support
of the non-movant's position is not sufficient to oppose
successfully a summary judgment motion; “there must be
evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the
[non-movant].” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250.