United States District Court, N.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE United States District Court.
Original Complaint in this case (Doc. 1) was filed pro
se by Quennel Augusta and Shawn J. Flores pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that they were subjected to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement at Vandalia
Correctional Center ("Vandalia") and Stateville
Correctional Center ("Stateville"). On September 1,
2017, the Court entered an Order pursuant to Boriboune v.
Berge, 391 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2004). (Doc. 5). On
October 4, 2017, consistent with the Boriboune Order
and Plaintiffs' responses (or failure to respond), the
claims of Plaintiff Flores were severed into a new action
(17-cv-1071-NJR) and Plaintiff Augusta was granted leave to
file an amended complaint in this action. (Doc. 12).
First Amended Complaint was dismissed without prejudice and
with leave to amend on November 6, 2017. (Doc. 18). On
November 27, 2017, Augusta filed his Second Amended Complaint
(Doc. 19) and notified the Court of his transfer to
Jacksonville Correctional Center ("Jacksonville").
The Second Amended Complaint includes a litany of complaints
pertaining to Augusta's prior incarcerations at Vandalia
(Doc. 19, pp. 5-11, 15) and Stateville (Doc. 19, pp. 12-13),
where he was housed for a period of time in 2016. The
allegations can be roughly divided into four sets of claims:
(1) Eighth Amendment claims related to Vandalia and directed
against Waggoner (Vandalia's Warden), Baldwin
(JTX)C's Director) and unspecified staff at Vandalia; (2)
Eighth Amendment claims related to the denial of meals at
Vandalia and directed against Mahaffey (Correctional Officer)
and Berg (Correctional Officer); (3) Fourteenth Amendment
claims pertaining to the opening of legal mail at Vandalia
and directed against Schwagi (Mailroom Staff Member); and (4)
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims pertaining to
Stateville and directed against Randy Pfister
(Stateville's Warden), Rolling (Correctional Officer) and
unspecified staff at Stateville.
REVIEW AND SEVERANCE
Second Amended Complaint is now before the Court for a
preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under
§ 1915A the Court is required to screen prisoner
complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See
28 U.S.C. § l9l5A(a). The Court must dismiss any portion
of the complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks
for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from
such relief 28 U.S.C. § l9l5A(b).
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
- Claims Directed Against Baldwin and Waggoner
generally claims that Vandalia is an "insufficient"
facility. (Doc. 19, p. 9). In support of this claim, he
describes the following cell conditions: (1) urine, rust
stained and bug infested mattress; (2) extremely cold
temperatures; (3) mattress located in close vicinity to the
bathroom, exposing Augusta to unsanitary conditions; and (4)
lack of cleaning supplies. (Doc. 19, pp. 5-7, 10). Augusta
also complains about the following conditions: (1) certain
areas of the prison do not have working water fountains,
which meant there was a lack of "proper cold drinking
water" and Augusta had to use the water fountain in the
chapel; (2) there are birds in the cafeteria; and (3)
inmates, who are not licensed food service workers, are
allowed to cook in the kitchen, in violation of state law.
(Doc. 19, pp. 5, 7-8, 13). Augusta also alleges that his
health and safety were at risk while housed at Vandalia
because Vandalia lacked security cameras, inmates were
allowed to keep razors in their personal effects and because
he was exposed to inmates with scabies. (Doc. 19, pp. 6-8,
associates these claims with Defendants Waggoner, Baldwin and
unspecified Vandalia employees. However, the references to
Waggoner and Baldwin throughout the Second Amended Complaint
do not specify how these defendants were personally involved
in the alleged violations. Instead, the Complaint suggests
that these individuals are subject to liability because they
maintain supervisory positions and should have known about
the complained of conditions. (Doc. 19, pp. 5-11).
also claims that Waggoner violated his Eighth Amendment
rights when she allowed her employees to strip search him in
the gym in front of 80 other inmates. (Doc. 19, p. 15).
Augusta alleges that this occurred twice in one month.
Id. He also alleges that during the strip searches,
other inmates stared at him and made comments about his penis
and underwear. Id. This left Augusta feeling
humiliated, angry, depressed and ashamed. Id.
Augusta alleges that Waggoner and Waggoner's employees do
not follow the proper procedures with regard to handling
grievances. (Doc. 19, p. 8).
- Claims Directed Against Mahaffey and Berg
alleges that Officer Mahaffey and Officer Berg have denied
Augusta and other inmates' meals. (Doc. 19, p. 7). And as
a result, Augusta and the other inmates had "to
- Claims Directed Against Schwagi
alleges that Angela Schwagi has opened Augusta's legal
mail outside of his presence. (Doc. 19, p. 7).
- Claims Directed Against Pfister and Rolling
was housed at Stateville Correctional Center in 2016. (Doc.
19, p. 12). He alleges that while at Stateville, he was
denied the opportunity to leave his cell for one hour per
day. Id. Augusta asserts that this violated his
constitutional rights and state correctional rules.
Id. He associates this claim with Defendant Pfister
(Stateville's Warden) and Pfister's employees.
Id. However, Augusta does not specify how Pfister or
any specific employee was personally involved in this alleged
at Stateville, Augusta was in the I-Unit for approximately
two weeks. Id. He claims that the cell he was housed
in was unsanitary. Id. Specifically, Augusta alleges
that the toilet was stained with urine and feces and
"employees" denied him cleaning supplies.
also complains about Defendant Rolling a Correctional Officer
at Stateville. According to the Second Amended Complaint,
Augusta asked Rolling for an ink pen so he could write a
grievance regarding Rolling's behavior, but Rolling
refused his request for a pen. Id. Augusta asserts
that this refusal violated his rights and interfered with his
ability to submit a grievance. Id. He also claims
that Pfister is subject to ...