United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Daniel Henney, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently
incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center
(“Lawrence”), brings this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his
constitutional rights. Plaintiff alleges Defendants were
deliberately indifferent to the sanitary conditions in the
dining hall and to his medical needs, in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, and injunctive relief.
case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section
1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner Complaints to
filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). Any portion of a 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 must be
dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Complaint
(Doc. 1): While at Lawrence, Plaintiff has experienced
unsanitary conditions in the dining hall. (Id. at p.
11). The dining hall is infested with mice and seasonal flies
and bugs. The cleaning in both the kitchen and the dining
hall are substandard. There is an excess of water and other
liquids on the floor of the dining hall and the trays, cups,
and tables are not clean and are often caked with old food.
(Id. at pp. 12, 14-15). For two months beginning in
December 2018, a sparrow and large pigeon were stuck in the
dining hall, but none of the correctional staff would capture
the birds. (Id. at p. 23). Plaintiff informed both
the John Doe Food Supervisor and the John Doe Lieutenant on
duty about the birds and the hazards that they posed but they
did nothing. Defendant Kohn was in charge of the dining hall
and was aware of the unsanitary conditions but did not seek
to remedy the conditions. He stated in response to
Plaintiff's numerous grievances that the dietary
department followed all sanitation regulations. (Id.
at p. 13).
developed illnesses as a result of the conditions in the
dining hall. (Doc. 1, pp. 12-22). Plaintiff had vomiting on
January 24, 2018 after eating in the dining hall.
(Id. at p. 12). He asked an inmate to inform C/O
Morgan of his illness and C/O Morgan called the healthcare
unit but did not check on Plaintiff. A Jane Doe nurse later
told Plaintiff to drink liquids and if he continued to feel
sick to contact the healthcare unit.
another occasion, Plaintiff fell ill after eating food that
was served “in-house”. (Id. at p. 15).
Although he pushed the panic button, it took twenty minutes
for C/O Morgan to respond. Plaintiff met with an unknown
nurse who swabbed Plaintiff's nose to check for the flu
but did not provide him with any further treatment. He
continued to suffer vomiting and diarrhea and wrote to the
healthcare unit but did not receive a response. (Id.
at p. 16). A Jane Doe nurse finally responded to
Plaintiff's request slip after he filed a grievance but
informed him that he had to be throwing up for 24 hours
before he could receive any help from the healthcare unit.
Plaintiff alleges that this is a Wexford Health Sources, Inc.
(“Wexford”) policy which prevents an inmate from
receiving care unless he has been vomiting for 24 hours.
(Id. at p. 17). He finally saw a doctor two days
later and was provided with medication for his nausea.
again suffered from vomiting on March 28, 2019. (Doc. 1, p.
19). He pushed the panic button several times and finally a
porter informed C/O Jenkins about his condition. C/O Jenkins
instructed Plaintiff to write a note to the healthcare unit.
He returned approximately twenty minutes later and again
informed Plaintiff to write the healthcare unit after
Plaintiff again requested help. He later reported to
Plaintiff that he contacted the healthcare unit and no one
responded. Two officers on the next shift took Plaintiff to
the healthcare unit and he was provided with medication for
his nausea and placed on a liquid diet. (Id.).
wrote numerous grievances about the conditions in the dining
hall and his various instances of illness after eating there.
His counselor and Healthcare Unit Administrator Cunningham
responded each time that appropriate care was given to
Plaintiff for his vomiting. (Doc. 1, p. 13, 17, 19, and 20).
As to the conditions of the dining hall, Kohn responded that
the dietary department follows all sanitation regulations.
(Id. at p. 13, 15, 17, and 20). Grievance Officer C.
Kamp denied the grievances and Warden Kevin Kink signed off
on them. Sarah Johnson and John Baldwin also denied the
on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into
the following Counts:
Count 1:Kohn, C/O Sloan, John Doe #1 Food Supervisor,
and John Doe #2 Lieutenant were deliberately indifferent
under the Eighth Amendment to Plaintiff's conditions of
confinement in the dining hall.
Count 2:Jane Doe Nurse and C/O Jenkins were
deliberately indifferent under the Eighth Amendment to
Plaintiff's request for medical care for his
Count 3:Wexford was deliberately indifferent under
the Eighth Amendment for maintaining a 24-hour policy,
delaying Plaintiff care for his vomiting for twenty-four
Count 4:Cunningham, Kevin Kink, C. Kamp, Sarah
Johnson, and John Baldwin were deliberately indifferent under
the Eighth Amendment in responding to ...