United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
ANTRELL A. TEEN, Plaintiff,
R. SMITH, ST. CLAIR COUNTY JAIL, PHILLIP MCLAUREN, JOHN DOE #1, JOHN DOE #2, MARY ROBINSON DAVIS, NURSE DEBORAH, NURSE ROBIN, and CAPTAIN KENNY, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT JUDGE
Teen v. St. Clair County Jail et al., Case No.
17-cv-594-JPG (S.D. Ill. June 5, 2017) (“Original
Action”), Plaintiff Antrell A. Teen, an apparent
pretrial detainee incarcerated at St. Clair County Jail
(“Jail”), brought suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights
that allegedly occurred at St. Clair County Jail
(“Jail”). Pursuant to George v. Smith,
507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007), two conditions of confinement
claims pertaining to boil orders issued at the Jail in
February 2016 and February 2017 were severed from that
initial action to form the basis for this action, Case No.
17-cv-916-JPG. On November 8, 2017, the severed action was
dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. (Doc.
6). Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on December
5, 2017. (Doc. 7).
First Amended Complaint is now before the Court for a
preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which
(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.
First Amended Complaint
First Amended Complaint (Doc. 7), Plaintiff makes the
claims that the grievance procedure in the Jail is
“broken.” (Doc. 7, p. 7). A majority of the time,
his grievances receive no response. Id. Plaintiff
claims that the flawed grievance procedure constitutes
deliberate indifference, “deprives the inmates, ”
and “prolong[s] deprivations.” Id.
Water February 2016
February 17, 2016 through February 19, 2016, St. Clair County
had a boil order in effect. Id. During this time,
the “faculty, staff, supervisor, and administrators did
not inform the inmates.” Id. Additionally,
inmates did not have access to uncontaminated water (such as
bottled water) or other beverages. (Doc. 7, pp. 7-8).
Accordingly, Plaintiff drank the contaminated water for three
days, causing pain, headaches, nausea, diarrhea, and
vomiting. (Doc. 7, p. 8).
about the contaminated water were given to the “block
officers” and a correctional officer identified as
“Riley.” Id. According to the First
Amended Complaint, the grievances “were addressed to
the supervisors on duty.” Id. The
“supervisors on duty” are not known and have been
identified by Plaintiff as John Doe #1. Plaintiff describes
the content of one grievance written by him. Id.
Plaintiff claims the grievance inquired about rules during a
boil order, last known water testing, and results of that
testing. Id. Plaintiff received no response from
“supervisors on duty or administrators.”
Id. On the third day of the boil order, Riley
provided the inmates with clean drinking water. Id.
Plaintiff became ill after drinking the contaminated water,
he complained to “the nurse.” Id.
Plaintiff received no treatment from this individual.
Id. Plaintiff also completed several sick calls, but
was never scheduled for treatment. Id. Plaintiff
claims that Defendants Nurse Robin and Nurse Deborah were
responsible for reviewing sick call slips and scheduling
medical appointments. Id.
Water February 2017
February 2, 2017, there was another boil order in effect for
St. Clair County. Once again, “administrators”
and “supervisors on duty” did not tell Plaintiff
or other inmates about the boil order. Id. The
supervisors on duty are not known and are identified by
Plaintiff as John Doe #2. Id. The inmates, including
Plaintiff, learned about the boil order from watching the
news. (Doc. 7, p. 9).
February 2, 2017, when Nurse Barbara made rounds to distribute
medicine, she had a jug of water on her medicine cart.
Id. This caused Plaintiff to inquire about the boil
order. Id. Correctional Officer Smith overheard the
inquiry and insisted there was not a boil order in effect.
Id. Plaintiff claims that Smith intentionally lied
in an effort to diffuse inmate anger regarding the boil
order. Id. When Plaintiff protested, Smith indicated
the boil order on the news was for a different county.
Id. The inmates then asked Nurse Barbara if this was
true and she responded, “If he says so.”
Id. Nonetheless, “after realizing [the
inmates] were aware [of the boil order], ” inmates in
Plaintiff's block received bottled water to drink.
Id. However, inmates in other blocks “that
didn't make a fuss” did not receive bottled
Drinking Water April 2017
boil order was issued in April 2017. Id. Once again,
Plaintiff and other inmates were not informed about the boil
order and were forced to drink unsafe drinking water.
contends that Davis, the kitchen supervisor, is subject to
liability because she was responsible for food and beverage
service at the Jail. (Doc. 7, p. 9).
Directed at ...