# Moore v. Jeffreys

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · December 10, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10154468

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** December 10, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10154468

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EDWARD MOORE,
#A70777,

Plaintiff, Case No. 20-cv-01286-SPM

v.

ROB JEFFREYS, ANTHONY WILLS,
ALEX JONES, BILL WESTFALL,
LUCHS MENNERICH, ERIN CARTER,
ANGELA CRAIN, and AMY LANE,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MCGLYNN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Edward Moore an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections who is
currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights. Moore claims that he has been housed in
unconstitutional conditions of confinement and exposed to environmental hazards. He seeks
monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.
The Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A. Under Section 1915A, any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or requests money damages from a defendant
who by law is immune from such relief must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). At this
juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
THE COMPLAINT
Moore alleges the following: He suffers from medical issues that render him “for the most
part handicapped.” (Doc. 1, p. 11). Moore has nerve damage in his legs due to arthritis in his back.
From his shoulder to his toes, the left side of his body is numb. Moore also has numbness in the
right foot and toes. (Id. at p. 11-12). He has arthritis in both hands, feet, hips, knees, and left
shoulder, neck, and lower back. (Id. at p. 13). Because of these conditions, he can barely walk,

bend down, or stand for long periods of time, and he experiences constant chronic pain. (Id.).
Moore has been granted the following medical permits: (1) feed in cell; (2) low bunk; (3) low
gallery; (4) shower on gallery; (5) slow walk; and (6) front cuff. (Id.). He is also diabetic and has
high blood pressure. (Id. at p. 11).
Around February 6, 2020, Moore was moved from West House at Menard to North I
Lowers. (Doc. 1, p. 11). In North I, Moore has been subjected to unconstitutional conditions that
have caused him pain and suffering. (Id. at p. 14). He is housed in a single-man cell that is very
small, measuring 4’8” wide by 10’8” long and not equipped for a handicapped person. (Id.at p. 15,
17, 34). In this limited space, there is a bunk bed, toilet, sink, and television stand. (Id.). He is
assigned the bottom bunk, but the top bunk bed is so low that he cannot sit up in bed, and it is

difficult and painful for him to “roll in and out” of the bunk. (Id. at p. 12). The cell has poor
lighting, and there is also a strong mildew and mold smell coming from the basement below the
cell. (Id. at p. 17-18).
The showers in the gallery where Moore is housed are not equipped for a handicapped
person. (Doc. 1, p. 17). They are dirty and do not have lights. Moore is forced to shower in the
dark. (Id. at p. 17, 36). The ventilation system for the gallery is also very dirty. (Id. at p. 17).
Moore has requested to move cells, but his requests have been denied or ignored by
Defendants. (Doc. 1, p. 14, 17, 18, 25-28).
DISCUSSION

Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to designate the
following counts:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim against
Jeffreys, Wills, Jones, Westfall, Mennerich, Carter, Crain and Lane.

Count 2: Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Rehabilitation Act
(“RA”) claim against Defendants for failing to accommodate his
physical disabilities.

The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless
otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. Any other claim that is mentioned in the
Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be considered dismissed without prejudice
as inadequately pled under the Twombly1 pleading standard.
Count 1
Prison conditions may be unconstitutionally unacceptable if they “pose a ‘substantial risk
to inmate health or safety.’” Estate of Simpson v. Gorbett, 863 F.3d 740, 745 (7th Cir. 2017)
(quoting Framer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837).
The Court finds that Moore, who suffers from various medical conditions, has stated a
claim for deliberate indifference to his conditions of confinement for being housed in a small cell
(1) not equipped for an inmate with physical disabilities; (2) with a bunk bed with a low top bunk;
(3) exposed to mold and mildew; (4) with poor ventilation; (5) and with dirty and dark showers
that also do not have proper accommodation for his disabilities. See Isby v. Brown, 856 F. 3d 508,
522 (7th Cir. 2017) (“some conditions of confinement may establish an Eighth Amendment
violation in combination when each would not do so alone”). But see Carroll v. Detella, 255 F. 3d
470, 471 (7th Cir. 2001) (“failing to provide a maximally safe environment, one completely free
from pollution or safety hazards” is not cruel and unusual punishment). Moore personally spoke
about his cell conditions to Wills, Jones, Westfall, Mennerich, Carter, and Lane and also wrote

1 See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (7th Cir. 2007).
letters to Jeffreys, Wills, Jones, Carter, and Crain, but Defendants have failed to act. Accordingly,
Count 1 will proceed against all Defendants.
Count 2
Moore alleges that the cell in which he is being housed in North I and the shower he uses

are not “equipped for a handicapped person.” (Doc. 1, p. 17). The Court construes this as a claim
under the ADA and RA. Moore, who suffers from arthritis, chronic pain, and limited mobility, has
stated a colorable claim under both statutes. Count 2 will proceed against IDOC Director Jeffreys
in his official capacity and is dismissed as to the other Defendants. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(b);
Jaros v. Ill. Dep’t of Corrs., 684 F.3d 667, 670, n. 2 (7th Cir. 2012) (individual capacity claims
are not available; the proper defendant is the agency or its director (in his official capacity)).
DISPOSITION
For the reasons stated above, the Complaint survives preliminary review pursuant to
Section 1915A. COUNT 1 will proceed against Jeffreys, Wills, Jones, Westfall, Mennerich,
Carter, Crain, and Lane. COUNT 2 will proceed against Jeffreys and is DISMISSED as to all

other Defendants.
Because Moore’s claims involve his medical conditions, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED
to ENTER the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act.
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Jeffreys, Wills, Jones, Westfall, Mennerich, Carter,
Crain, and Lane the following: (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 Complaint, and this Memorandum and Order to the defendants’ place of
employment. 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.
If a defendant can no longer be found at the work address provided by Moore, the employer
shall furnish the Clerk with the defendant’s current work address, or, if not known, his last known

address. This information shall be used only for sending the forms as directed above or for formally
effecting service. Any documentation of the address shall be retained only by the Clerk. Address
information shall not be maintained in the court file or disclosed by the Clerk.
Defendants are ORDERED to file an appropriate responsive pleading to the Complaint in
a timely manner and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Pursuant to
Administrative Order No. 244, Defendants only need to respond to the issues stated in this
Merit Review Order.
If judgment is rendered against Moore and the judgment includes the payment of costs
under Section 1915, he will be required to pay the full amount of the costs, even though his
application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).

Finally, Moore is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of
Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than 7 days
after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will cause a
delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action for want of
prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 10, 2021

s/Stephen McGlynn
STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN
United States District Judge
NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF

The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the appropriate defendants of your lawsuit and
serve them with a copy of your complaint. After service has been achieved, the defendants will
enter their appearance and file an Answer to the complaint. It will likely take at least 60 days from
the date of this Order to receive the defendants’ Answers, but it is entirely possible that it will take
90 days or more. When all of the defendants have filed Answers, the Court will enter a Scheduling
Order containing important information on deadlines, discovery, and procedures. Plaintiff is
advised to wait until counsel has appeared for the defendants before filing any motions, to give the
defendants notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before defendants’
counsel has filed an appearance will generally be denied as premature. Plaintiff need not submit
any evidence to the Court at his time, unless otherwise directed by the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10154468. Public record. Not legal advice.