United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Pedro Orozco on
June 13, 2019. (Doc. 18, pp. 1-63). Plaintiff brings this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
deprivations of his constitutional rights at Lawrence
Correctional Center (“Lawrence”) in March and
April 2018. Id. Plaintiff, who is represented by
counsel, seeks money damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.
Id. at p. 11.
Second Amended Complaint is subject to screening under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Section 1915A requires the Court to
screen prisoner complaints and filter out non-meritorious
claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion
of a complaint that is legally frivolous or 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). The
Second Amended Complaint survives screening under this
to the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff endured inhumane
conditions of confinement at Lawrence in March and April
2018. (Doc. 18, pp. 1-63). He was placed in segregation as
punishment for a fight that was initiated by an inmate who
had been sexually harassing him for weeks. Id.
Plaintiff describes filthy living conditions in a
waste-ridden and insect-infested cell. Id. at pp. 2,
6-7. He developed marks, welts, bug bites, and puss-filled
bumps on his skin. Id. at p. 2. For fifteen days in
April 2018, Plaintiff lived in total darkness while bugs
crawled on his body and into his food. Id. at p. 7.
Despite his repeated pleas for help, Defendants refused to
address these conditions or move Plaintiff to a nearby vacant
cell. Id. Instead, they punished him for refusing
housing with a known homosexual inmate and called him a
“snitch” after he filed a complaint against an
officer (Crawford). Id. at pp. 5-7.
identifies a single claim in the Second Amended Complaint,
which was originally referred to as “Count 3” in
the Order Dismissing Complaint (Doc. 7, p. 4):
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against
Defendants for subjecting Plaintiff to unconstitutional
conditions of confinement by placing him in a dark and filthy
segregation cell in March and/or April 2018.
parties and the Court will use this designation in all future
pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by this
Court. Any claim not identified above but implicated by the
allegations in the Second Amended Complaint are considered
dismissed without prejudice from this action.
evaluating an Eighth Amendment claim, the Court conducts an
objective and a subjective inquiry. Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). The objective inquiry
requires the Court to consider whether the alleged
deprivation is “sufficiently serious.”
Id. The subjective inquiry focuses on whether the
defendants acted with deliberate indifference. Id.
at 837. The conditions Plaintiff describes are objectively,
sufficiently serious. Knight v. Wiseman, 590 F.3d
458, 463 (7th Cir. 2009) (shelter, bedding, cleaning
supplies, and hygiene items are among life's
necessities). The response of Defendants-who ignored,
punished, and/or harassed Plaintiff for seeking a remedy for
the conditions-supports a claim of deliberate indifference
against them. Accordingly, the Eighth Amendment claim
survives preliminary review against all individuals named as
defendants. Plaintiff did not replead the First Amendment
retaliation claim or Fourteenth Amendment due process claim,
initially designated as Counts 1 and 2 in the Order
Dismissing Complaint. (See Doc. 7, pp. 3-4). Both
claims are considered dismissed without prejudice.
IS ORDERED that the Second Amended Complaint (Doc.
18) survives screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
COUNT 1 will proceed against all of the
defendants. The First Amendment retaliation claim and
Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, designated as Counts
1 and 2 respectively in the Order Dismissing Complaint,
remain dismissed without prejudice.
IS ORDERED that as to COUNT 1, the
Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants KINK,
PIPER, SLOAN, BAKER, CLARK, THULL, BALDWIN, and
CRAWFORD: (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit
and Request to Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6
(Waiver of Service of Summons). The Clerk is
DIRECTED to mail these forms, a copy of the
Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 18), and this Memorandum and
Order to Defendants' place of employment as identified by
Plaintiff. If a Defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver
of Service of Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days
from the date the forms were sent, the Clerk shall take
appropriate steps to effect formal service on that Defendant,
and the Court will require the Defendant to pay the full
costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant can no longer be found at the work address provided
by Plaintiff, the employer shall furnish the Clerk with that
Defendant's current work address, or, if not known, the
Defendant's last-known address. This information shall be
used only for sending the forms as directed above or formally
effecting service. Any documentation of the address shall be
retained by the Clerk. Address information shall not be
maintained in the court file or disclosed.
are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate
responsive pleading to the Second Amended Complaint and shall
not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(g). Pursuant to Administrative Order No.