United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW AMENDED COMPLAINT
BILLY MCDADE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
proceeding pro se, files a complaint alleging
unconstitutional conditions of confinement, deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs and violations of
Equal Protection at the Pontiac Correctional Center
(“Pontiac”). 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
accusation.” Wilson v. Ryker, 451 Fed. Appx.
588, 589 (7th Cir. 2011) quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
April 23, 2019, Plaintiff was transferred to Pontiac and
placed in cell 122 by Defendant Ballwin and two Doe
Correctional Officers. Plaintiff complains that he did not
have access to his property and did not receive a bedroll or
hygiene products. When the cell door was opened, it was clear
that the toilet was malfunctioning as there was water and
feces on the floor. Plaintiff asks to be moved to a different
cell, but Defendants offered no response.
claims that he fell one or more times due to the water on the
floor. On one occasion, he fell face first, causing his nose
to bleed badly for 20 to 25 minutes. Plaintiff believes that
his nose was broken and claims that, even though he informed
“authorities,” he received no medical treatment
and no x-rays to his nose.
plead an Eighth Amendment prohibits conditions of confinement
claim Plaintiff must allege “extreme
deprivations” to establish that the conditions were
serious enough to constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
“In order to violate the Constitution, deprivations
must be ‘unquestioned and serious’ and contrary
to ‘the minimal civilized measure of life's
necessities’. Mere discomfort and inconvenience do not
implicate the Constitution”; and “it is
well-settled that conditions which are temporary and do not
result in physical harm are not actionable under the Eighth
Amendment.” Jihad v. Wright, 124 F.3d 204 at
*2 (7th Cir. 1997) (internal citations omitted).
Plaintiff does not indicate how long he was held under the
described conditions. See Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d
640, 644 (7th Cir. 1997) (the court is to examine not just
the severity, but the duration of the complained-of
conditions). See also, Harris v. Fleming, 839 F.2d
1232, 1235 (7th Cir. 1988) (ten days in a segregation unit
without toilet paper, toothbrush or toothpaste in a
“filthy, roach-infested cell” did not constitute
cruel and unusual punishment). Plaintiff will be given an
opportunity to replead his conditions of confinement claim,
indicating the length of time he was subjected to the
alleges deliberate in difference in the treatment of his
facial injury but does not indicate whom he holds liable,
pleading only that he informed “authorities” who
failed to act. To successfully establish deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need, a plaintiff must show
(1) that the defendant knew of the serious medical need, and
(2) disregarded that need. Collignon v. Milwaukee
County, 163 F.3d 982, 989 (7th Cir 1998),
citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
Plaintiff will be given leave to amend his deliberate
indifference claim, but must indicate the name, title,
position or other descriptive information as to those whom he
holds liable so that they may be served.
also makes a conclusory claim that he suffered a violation of
Equal Protection. He fails to plead, however, that he was
treated differently from other similarly situated individuals
due to his race, or that he was arbitrarily singled out for
unfair treatment. Abcarian v. McDonald, 617 F.3d
931, 938 (7th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff asserts only that he was
placed in a cell where water and feces had overflowed onto
the floor. These allegations fail to plead that Plaintiff was
“irrationally targeted” for discriminatory
treatment. See Reget v. City of La Crosse, 595 F.3d
691, 695 (7th Cir. 2010). See also, Shango v.
Jurich, 681F.2d 1091, 1104 (7th Cir. 1982). While these
facts might not support an Equal Protection claim, Plaintiff
will be given an opportunity to replead this claim, should he
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 will have 30 days from the entry of this
order in which to replead his claims. The pleading is to be
captioned Amended Complaint and is to include all of
Plaintiff’s claims without reference to a prior
pleading. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in
the dismissal of this case, without prejudice, for failure to
state a claim.
Plaintiff’s , motion to serve Defendants; and 
and , motions for recruitment of pro bono counsel are all
DENIED, with leave to reassert if Plaintiff files an amended
complaint which survives merit review. ...