United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
BILLY McDADE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
proceeding pro se, pursues a § 1983 action
asserting in inhumane conditions of confinement at the
Danville Correctional Center (“Danville”). The
case is before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. In reviewing the Complaint, the Court
accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally construing
them in Plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour,
729 F.3d 645, 649-51 (7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory
statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be
provided to “state a claim for relief that is plausible
on its face.” Alexander v. United States, 721
F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). While the pleading standard does not require
“detailed factual allegations”, it requires
“more than an unadorned,
Wilson v. Ryker, 451 Fed.Appx. 588, 589 (7th Cir.
2011) quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
December 13, 2017, Plaintiff was transferred to disciplinary
segregation at Danville. He was placed in cell 1-17 which had
feces smeared on the walls. Plaintiff notified an
unidentified staff member and requested that he be given
cleaning supplies. Plaintiff was told that he would have to
wait until cell cleaning day. Plaintiff was not satisfied and
asked another officer for cleaning supplies and was told that
the cell had already been cleaned. When Plaintiff's
personal belongings were given to him, he used his T-shirt
and a bar of soup to clean, and complains that there was no
hot water in his cell.
also alleges that from December 24 through 29, 2017 the
window in his cell was stuck partially open. He claims that
his cell was freezing cold and he was able to see his breath.
On an unidentified date, Plaintiff told Defendant Warden
Calloway of the window and generally cold conditions.
Defendant Calloway told him that they were working on the
heating problem. Plaintiff indicates that the window was
finally closed on December 29, but does not reveal the length
of time between his complaint to Defendant Calloway and the
repair to the window.
asserts that even after his window was repaired, his cell
continued to be extremely cold. He identifies other inmates
in the segregation unit who also complained of the cold
temperatures. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Berger stood
in several of the cells, acknowledged that they were unduly
cold, and told the inmates he would place another work order.
Defendant Burger also placed covers over the outside of the
windows. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Crain admitted it
was too cold and recommended that the inmates write
grievances so that the matter would be addressed. Plaintiff
complains that Defendants, Williamson and Trueblood only made
jokes when he, and the others, complained of the cold. He
also alleges that he asked an unidentified individual for an
extra blanket and coat and was denied.
of confinement which are “unquestioned and
serious” and contrary to “the minimal civilized
measure of life's necessities” violate the Eighth
Amendment. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347
(1981). However, “extreme deprivations are required to
make out a conditions-of-confinement claim.” Hudson
v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992). Mere discomfort and
inconvenience do not implicate the Constitution. Caldwell
v. Miller, 790 F.2d 589, 600-01 (7th Cir.1986).
A prison official does not become liable for inhumane
conditions of confinement “unless the official knows of
and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety;
the official must both be aware of facts from which the
inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious
harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
does not indicate how long he was in cell number 1-17 before
he had the means to clean it. Dixon v. Godinez, 114
F.3d 640, 644 (7th Cir. 1997) (court to examine not just the
severity, but the duration of the complained-of conditions).
He also does not indicate the length of time between
reporting the broken window to Warden Calloway and it being
fixed. See Gray v. Hardy, 826 F.3d 1000, 1005.
“An adverse condition of confinement, if endured over a
significant time, can become an Eight Amendment violation
even if it would not be impermissible if it were only a
short-term problem.” As a result, the Court cannot
fully evaluate these claims.
does quantify the length of time in which he was held under
extremely cold temperatures, as he notes it was from December
24, 2017 through December 29, 2017. Plaintiff does not claim,
however, that he was harmed due to the cold. To assert a
§ 1983 claim for money damages Plaintiff must allege an
injury. Thomas v. Illinois, 697 F.3d 612, 614 (7th
Cir. 2012). See Budd v.Motley, 711 F.3d 840, 843
(7th Cir. 2013) (for case to be actionable, Plaintiff must
allege that he suffered some cognizable harm, whether
physical or psychological.) In addition, Plaintiff,
generally, does not identify the manner in which any
individual Defendant failed to take reasonable measures to
correct the conditions, so as to plead how they were
deliberately indifferent to him.
will have an opportunity to replead his claims. He is placed
on notice, however, that Danville is not a proper Defendant
as it is not a “person” amenable to suit under
Section 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep't of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (“neither a State
nor its officials acting in their official capacities are
‘persons' under [Section] 1983.”)
Furthermore, Danville, as a State agency, enjoys Eleventh
Amendment immunity in a suit for money damages. Wynn v.
Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 592 (7th Cir.2001).
IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a
claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. §
1915A. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this
order to file an amended complaint, should he wish. Failure
to file an amended complaint will result in the dismissal of
this case, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiff's amended complaint will replace
Plaintiff's original complaint in its entirety.
Accordingly, the amended complaint must contain all
allegations against all Defendants. Piecemeal amendments are
Plaintiff's motion for recruitment of pro bono counsel
 is rendered MOOT, with leave to reassert ...