“[s]ection 1997e(e) does not permit recovery for custodial mental or emotional damages ‘without a prior showing of physical injury.’”
How later courts described this case
- “[s]ection 1997e(e) does not permit recovery for custodial mental or emotional damages ‘without a prior showing of physical injury.’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOE TUCKER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) No.: 20-cv-3026-JBM
)
CAMERON WATSON, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and after full payment of the filing fee, asserts an action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging inhumane conditions of confinement at the Western Illinois
Correctional Center. Plaintiff names Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) Director Rob
Jeffreys, Western Warden Cameron Watson, Counselor Boswick, Grievance Officer Tara Goins
and Debbie Knauer of the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”). 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 (7th Cir. 2103). 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. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013).
Plaintiff complains of the overall physical condition of the facilities at Western. These
include dirty exhaust vents, a broken exhaust blower in the dayroom, extreme heat in summer,
mold and mildew in the showers and laundry and “ping-pong” toilets where contents flushed in
one toilet back up into another. In addition, Plaintiff claims that inmates are given inadequate
cleaning supplies and watered-down cleaning agents.
Plaintiff asserts that he wrote a grievance regarding these conditions on June 9, 2019.
He does not indicate to whom the grievance was directed or how it was received. Plaintiff names
Counselor Boswick, Grievance Officer Tara Goins and ARB Chair Debbie Knauer, but directs
no allegations against them. He claims that Director Jeffreys and Warden Watson were “grossly
negligent” in supervising their employees and that employees, in general, failed to remedy the
conditions.
ANALYSIS
To make out an inhumane conditions of confinement claim a Plaintiff must allege an
extreme deprivation, [“b]ecause routine discomfort is ‘part of the penalty that criminal offenders
pay for their offenses against society’, only those deprivations denying ‘the minimal civilized
measure of life's necessities' are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment
violation.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992) (internal citations omitted). Conditions
which are “restrictive and even harsh” do not reach this standard. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S.
337, 347 (1981).
While the alleged conditions might otherwise state a colorable claim, Plaintiff fails to
identify those individuals whom he holds responsible. Plaintiff has named three individuals who
likely had responsibility for processing his grievances but does not indicate in what way they
violated his constitutional rights; a claim must contain factual allegations sufficient to show that
Plaintiff is entitled to relief from the Defendant against whom the claim has been asserted. See
Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 968 (7th Cir. 2006) noting that Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) requires a
“short and plain statement of the claim sufficient to notify the defendants of the allegations
against them and enable them to file an answer.” Merely naming a defendant in the caption is
insufficient to state a claim. Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998). Furthermore,
“the alleged mishandling of [Plaintiff’s] grievances by persons who otherwise did not cause or
participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.” See Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953
(7th Cir. 2011).
While Plaintiff implies that all Defendants were aware of the conditions, he does not
identify which of the Defendants were aware or claim that he personally discussed these
conditions with any of them. See Pepper v. Village of Oak Park, 430 F.3d 809, 810 (7th Cir.
2005) (citations omitted) (“to be liable under [Section] 1983, an individual defendant must have
caused or participated in a constitutional deprivation.”)
Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendants Jeffreys and Watson assert that they were
“grossly negligent” in supervising their subordinates. The doctrine of respondeat superior
(supervisor liability) does not apply to actions filed under §1983. Pacelli v. DeVito, 972 F.2d
871, 877 (7th Cir. 1992). Defendants can be liable under §1983 only if they personally
participated in the constitutional deprivation or, if they “know about the conduct and facilitate it,
approve it, condone it, or turn a blind eye for fear of what they might see.” Sanville v.
McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001).
Lastly, Plaintiff claims he has experienced pain and suffering, requesting compensatory
and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief. Plaintiff is not entitled to compensatory
damages, however, as he has not alleged that he suffered a physical injury. Zehner v. Trigg, 133
F.3d 459, 460 (7th Cir. 1997) (“[s]ection 1997e(e) does not permit recovery for custodial mental
or emotional damages ‘without a prior showing of physical injury.’”)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. 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 as instructed herein. 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.
2. On January 27, 2020, the Court instructed Plaintiff to provide additional
information regarding his litigation history. Plaintiff subsequently filed a letter [6], disclosing
the terms of two settlements, asserting that they were subject to Nondisclosure Agreements. The
clerk is directed to file [6] under seal. Plaintiff is advised that, in the future, he may disclose that
he settled the two cases subject to Nondisclosure Agreements but is not to reveal the terms of the
settlements.
__5_/1_/_2_0_2_0____________ ______s/Joe Billy McDade __
ENTERED JOE BILLY McDADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE