United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Perkins brings this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983
suit against Tarry Williams, at all relevant times the Warden
of Stateville Correctional Center, and Tracy Engleson, at all
relevant times the Superintendent of Stateville's
Northern Reception and Classification Center
(“NRC”), alleging that he was subjected to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement, in violation of
the Eighth Amendment, from December 2013 to December 2014.
Doc. 16. Defendants move for summary judgment. Doc. 58. The
motion is granted in part and denied in part.
with the local rules, Defendants filed a Local Rule
56.1(a)(3) statement of undisputed facts with their summary
judgment motion. Doc. 60. The relevant factual assertions in
the Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statement cite evidentiary material
in the record and are supported by the cited material.
See N.D. Ill. L.R. 56.1(a) (“The statement
referred to in (3) shall consist of short numbered
paragraphs, including within each paragraph specific
references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other
supporting materials relied upon to support the facts set
forth in that paragraph.”). Also consistent with the
local rules, Defendants served on Perkins a Local Rule 56.2
Notice, which explains what Local Rule 56.1 requires of a
pro se litigant opposing summary judgment. Doc. 61.
Seventh Circuit “has consistently upheld district
judges' discretion to require strict compliance with
Local Rule 56.1.” Flint v. City of Belvidere,
791 F.3d 764, 767 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing cases); see
also Stevo v. Frasor, 662 F.3d 880, 886-87 (7th Cir.
2011) (“Because of the high volume of summary judgment
motions and the benefits of clear presentation of relevant
evidence and law, we have repeatedly held that district
judges are entitled to insist on strict compliance with local
rules designed to promote the clarity of summary judgment
filings.”); Patterson v. Ind. Newspapers,
Inc., 589 F.3d 357, 360 (7th Cir. 2009) (same).
Perkins's pro se status does not excuse him from
complying with Local Rule 56.1. See McNeil v. United
States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“[W]e have never
suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation
should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who
proceed without counsel.”); Coleman v. Goodwill
Indus. of Se. Wis., Inc., 423 F. App'x 642, 643 (7th
Cir. 2011) (“Though courts are solicitous of pro
se litigants, they may nonetheless require strict
compliance with local rules.”); Wilson v. Kautex,
Inc., 371 F. App'x 663, 664 (7th Cir. 2010)
(“[S]trictly enforcing Local Rule 56.1 was well within
the district court's discretion, even though Wilson is a
pro se litigant.”) (citation omitted);
Cady v. Sheahan, 467 F.3d 1057, 1061 (7th Cir. 2006)
(“[E]ven pro se litigants must follow rules of
Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) required Perkins to file a “concise
response to [Defendants' Local Rule 56.1(a)(3)] statement
… contain[ing] 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.” N.D.Ill. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(B). Perkins filed a
Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) response, which denies some of
Defendants' Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) assertions. Doc. 63 at
1-12. But Perkins, in violation of Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B),
failed to support his denials with citations to anything in
the record, so his denials will be disregarded. Accordingly,
as the local rules provide, the court accepts as true the
facts set forth in Defendants' Local Rule 56.1(a)(3)
statement. See N.D. Ill. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(C)
(“All material facts set forth in the statement
required of the moving party will be deemed to be admitted
unless controverted by the statement of the opposing
party.”); Olivet Baptist Church v. Church Mut. Ins.
Co., 672 F. App'x 607, 607 (7th Cir. 2017)
(“The district court treated most of the
[defendant's] factual submissions as unopposed, because
the [plaintiff] failed to contest them in the form required
by Local Rule 56.1(b). We have held that the district court
is entitled to enforce that rule in precisely the way it
enforced the rule in this litigation.”); Curtis v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., 807 F.3d 215, 218 (7th Cir.
2015) (“When a responding party's statement fails
to dispute the facts set forth in the moving party's
statement in the manner dictated by the rule, those facts are
deemed admitted for purposes of the motion.”) (citation
said, the court is mindful that “a nonmovant's
failure to respond to a summary judgment motion or failure to
comply with Local Rule 56.1 … does not …
automatically result in judgment for the movant. [The movant]
must still demonstrate that it is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Keeton v. Morningstar, Inc.,
667 F.3d 877, 884 (7th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). The
court therefore will recite the facts in the Defendants'
Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statement, viewing the facts and
inferences therefrom as favorably to Perkins as the record
and Local Rule 56.1 allow. See Canen v. Chapman, 847
F.3d 407, 412 (7th Cir. 2017). The court then will determine
whether, on those facts, Defendants are entitled to summary
judgment. At this juncture, the court must assume the truth
of those facts, but does not vouch for them. See Arroyo
v. Volvo Grp. N. Am., LLC, 805 F.3d 278, 281 (7th Cir.
was Warden of Stateville and the NRC from April 2014 to July
2015. Doc. 60 at ¶ 2. Engleson was Superintendent of the
NRC from 1998 to 2016. Id. at ¶ 3. Perkins is
an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) presently housed at Menard
Correctional Center. Id. at ¶ 1. Perkins
entered the NRC on or about December 9, 2013, and was
transferred to Pontiac Correctional Center on or about
December 9, 2014. Id. at ¶¶ 5, 56.
at the NRC, Perkins was issued one bar of soap per week, and
was permitted to buy two additional bars of soap per month at
the commissary. Id. at ¶¶ 11-12. The bars
sold at the commissary were three to four times larger than
the bars issued weekly. Id. at ¶ 13. Perkins
bought one bar of Ivory soap in January 2014, and then two
bars of Ivory soap per month from February 2014 to October
2014. Id. at ¶ 14.
was issued one tube of toothpaste, about a finger and a half
long, once per week or every two weeks, and was permitted to
buy toothpaste and toothbrushes at the commissary.
Id. at ¶¶ 16-17. Perkins bought 4.2-ounce
tubes of toothpaste in January 2014, March 2014, May 2014,
June 2014, and October 2014, and 5-packs of short-handled
toothbrushes in January 2014, March 2014, April 2014, May
2014, June 2014, July 2014, August 2014, September 2014,
October 2014, and December 2014. Id. at ¶¶
jumpsuit and sheet that Perkins was issued upon entering the
NRC smelled “like a factory.” Id. at
¶ 20. During his year at the NRC, Perkins was never
given a replacement jumpsuit and his jumpsuit was never
washed. Id. at ¶ 21. Perkins purchased a
laundry bag from the commissary in May 2014 and was told
repeatedly to turn his linen in; he put his linen on his door
“a couple times, ” but it was never taken to the
laundry. Id. at ¶¶ 22-23. Perkins was able
to use soap and water in his cell to try to clean his
clothes. Id. at ¶ 24. Perkins developed a rash
that he believed was caused by a lack of soap and clean
clothes. Id. at ¶ 25.
observed mice and roaches in his cell on a daily basis, and
observed mouse droppings in his cell “a couple
times.” Id. at ¶¶ 29-30, 32. Perkins
was never bitten and suffered no physical harm from the mice
in his cell. Id. at ¶ 31. Perkins also observed
gnats in his cell. Id. at ¶ 32. Other than
being bitten once by a spider, Perkins suffered no physical
harm from the insects in his cell. Id. at ¶ 33.
The Critter Ridder extermination company visited the NRC
multiple times per month to provide pest control services.
Id. at ¶ 34.
was provided with cleaning supplies on a “hit or
miss” basis, and he used them when they were provided.
Id. at ¶ 35. Perkins believed that the toilet
in his cell “hadn't been cleaned in years”
and observed that it was “caked” in what he
described as a fungus or mold. Perkins developed a rash on
his hand as a result of cleaning the substance he described
as mold on his toilet. Id. at ¶ 39. The vent in
Perkins's cell was full of dust buildup that caused him
to suffer nausea and experience shortness of breath.
Id. at ¶ 40. There was a substance Perkins
believed was mold in his living unit's showers.
Id. at ¶¶ 36-38.
never had contact, either in person or by mail, with Warden
Williams or Superintendent Engleson. Id. at ¶
41. During the thirteen times Perkins saw his counselor at
the NRC, he never complained about the conditions alleged in
this case. Id. at ¶ 53. Perkins submitted one
grievance, dated October 25, 2014, regarding his conditions
of confinement; it focused on his laundry troubles and also