# Walker v. Brookhart

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 10, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10156426

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** May 10, 2023
- **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/10156426

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing “Eighth Amendment violations where prisoners are deprived of cleaning supplies and running water only in extreme circumstances”
- discussing the elements of a conditions of confinement claim

## Opinion text

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

JAMES E. WALKER,
#R02343,

Plaintiff, Case No. 22-cv-01162-SPM

v.

D. BROOKHART,
ETHAN MCQUEEN,
JOHNSON 1,1
NEIKIRK,
MUELLER,
DUNLAP,
C/O HANSON,
LENEAR,
R. WALKER,
SAWYER,
RAMISO,
ARROW,
MUKUS,
J. WALLANCE,
HARMON,
J. MEDLER,
MRS. NEW,
RICHARDSON,
RIGGS,
STOVES,
HUNTLY,
ERWIN,
MONI,
SLANDER,
BFFORD,
SLOWGAN,
BAKER,
OFFICER REED,
TAYLOR,
BROWN,
ROBERT,
BURTIS,
YONOLS,

1 Plaintiff identifies two Defendants as Johnson. The Court will distinguish between them by identifying them as
Johnson 1 and Johnson 2.
BRIDGWELL,
COUNSELOR HILL,
ZOLLOUS,
PIPER,
TITWELL,
PURDUE,
THOMAS,
DOREESE,
COOPER,
FIERS,
OFFICER TRIBBLE,
LT. HOWARD,
BUTLER,
ACKERMAN,
GIVES,
JOHNSON 2,
WILLIAM, and
JOHN DOES 1-35,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MCGLYNN, District Judge:
Plaintiff James Walker, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections who is
currently incarcerated at Sheridan Correctional Center, brings this civil action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights that occurred while at Lawrence
Correctional Center (“Lawrence”). 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
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges he experienced the following adverse conditions in 2020
and 2021 while housed at Lawrence (Doc. 1):
Denied Cleaning Supplies
Plaintiff claims that in January, February, March, April, July, August, September, and
October 2020, he was housed in a dirty cell and deprived of proper cleaning supplies. His cell had

a dirty clogged vent with spider webs, and there were also spider webs under the bunk beds.
Plaintiff was not given a mop, broom, and toilet brush and cleaner. He states that these supplies
are supposed to given out on weekends. Plaintiff had to clean using the soap given to him to wash
his body and at times he was forced to choose between washing his body or keeping his cell clean.
The dirt in his cell aggravated his allergies and caused headaches and cold symptoms.
Unsanitary Showers
During the same period, January, February, March, April, July, August, September, and
October 2020, the communal showers were not adequately cleaned. Defendants were not allowing
inmate porters out of their cells to clean the showers. The drains would be clogged with trash, hair,
and paper and plastic soap packaging resulting in standing water and mold. Inmates would urinate

in the showers leaving a foul smell. Plaintiff developed a toenail fungus because of the shower
conditions.
Cold Meal Trays
In January, February, March, April, July, August, September, and October 2020 Plaintiff
was repeatedly served cold meal trays. The trays were not kept in warmers to maintain proper
temperature, and the food turned cold before it was served to the inmates. For the breakfast trays,
most of the food was “ill prepared” with old bread, torn up shells, spoiled milk, and watered-down
cereal. During dinner, he was given trays without juice or milk. Often, he was not provided utensils
or condiments, and the milk provided was spoiled. Constantly eating cold meals caused Plaintiff

to have stomach pain.
Feces in Oatmeal
On April 17, 2020, Plaintiff was given oatmeal by Correctional Officer Harmon that
contained rat feces. He requested another four trays, and those trays were also contaminated with
rat feces. He collected samples to show Defendants but “to no avail.” (Doc. 1, p. 33).

Cold Temperatures
From April 1 through April 22, 2020, Plaintiff was subjected to extremely cold
temperatures because the heat was not running. (Doc. 1, p. 33). He complained to Correctional
Officers Ramiso, Harmon, Mukus, Johnson 1, Lenear, and Dunlap during their shifts about the
heat not being turned on by staff.
Small Cell
From November through December 2020, Plaintiff was housed in a very small cell without
room to exercise. (Doc. 1, p. 35). During this time, Lawrence was on lock down, and he was in his
cell 21 to 22 hours a day. Plaintiff states the situation was unsanitary because the sink and toilet
are close to the bunk beds and towel racks. While on his bunk bed, Plaintiff would have to reach

five feet to turn on his television placing him at risk of falling.
Contaminated Water
While incarcerated at Lawrence, the water in the cells was unsafe for drinking. (Doc. 1, p.
36). Plaintiff asserts the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency found in 2018 that the water
supplied to Lawrence was toxic and not fit for human consumption. The IDOC Director and
Lawrence Administration have ignored the warning given by the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency for years. Prison officials and Defendants have allowed Plaintiff and other inmates to
consume toxic tap water placing him at risk for long term health problems.
COVID Policy

Plaintiff asserts that in December 2020, he was recklessly exposed to the COVID-19 virus
from other inmates and staff. (Doc. 1, p. 37-38). Inmates who worked in the kitchen were exposed
to staff who had COVID-19, and those inmates transported the virus back to the living units.
Additionally, his cellmate was a “porter shower crew worker” who worked with inmates and staff
who had tested positive for COVID-19, causing him to further be exposed to the deadly virus.

Officers Dunlap and Riggs would fail to timely buzz open cell doors forcing Plaintiff to
stand near other inmates when trying to return to his cell from showering or using the phone.
Dunlap, Riggs, Titwell, and Gives would also “key open cell doors with no gloves further” further
spreading the virus.
Plaintiff claims that the virus also spread through the vents. He was housed near cells that
contained inmates who had contracted the virus. Eventually, Plaintiff contradicted the virus.
Sleep Deprivation
From May 3 through May 13, 2021, Plaintiff was subjected to sleep deprivation. (Doc. 1,
p. 38). During this time, the count light in his cell was broken. It would be turned on by staff, but
not turn off until two to three hours later. The light blinks and makes a buzzing sound, which

prevented Plaintiff from sleeping.
PRELIMINARY DISMISSALS
First, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s allegations regarding being housed in a small cell
from November through December 2020 and being provided unsafe drinking water while at
Lawrence, as these allegations are not asserted against any specific defendant. (Doc. 1, p. 36-37).
Plaintiff must associate specific defendants with specific claims, so that defendants are put on
notice of the claims brought against them and can properly answer the complaint. See Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). Plaintiff has named 85
Defendants. Thus, general allegations of unconstitutional conditions do not adequately put each

individual defendant on notice of what Plaintiff his claiming against him or her. See Thomson v.
Washington, 362 F.3d 969, 970–71 (7th Cir.2004) (a complaint must put the defendant on notice
of the claims and the grounds they rest upon, along with “some indication ... of time and place.”).
Accordingly, claims associated with being housed in a small cell from November through
December 2020 and being provided toxic drinking water are dismissed without prejudice.

The Court also dismisses all claims against Warden Brookhart and Counselor Erwin.
According to the Complaint, their only involvement in the alleged violations was reviewing
Plaintiff’s grievances. Twice in the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts he grieved the conditions of his
confinement and Erwin determined the grievances were duplicates. (Doc. 1, p. 33, 34). One of the
grievances was further reviewed by Warden Brookhart, who failed to “address the no heat matter.”
(Id. at p. 33). Mishandling or denial of prison 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). Other than reviewing grievances, there are no allegations suggesting personal
involvement in Plaintiff’s assertions. Accordingly, any claims against Brookhart and Erwin are
dismissed without prejudice.

Finally, the Court dismisses any intended claims against individuals who are not named in
the case caption. Plaintiff mentions the names Numiller and Henson in his statement of claim (see
Doc. 1, p. 34), but these persons are not in the case caption or included in Plaintiff’s list of
defendants. The Court will not treat parties not listed in the caption as defendants. See Myles v.
United States, 416 F.3d 551, 551–52 (7th Cir. 2005) (to be properly considered a party a defendant
must be “specif[ied] in the caption”).
DISCUSSION
Based on Plaintiff’s allegations in the Complaint, the Court redesignates the following
counts:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against McQueen, Johnson 1, Neikirk,
John Does 1-4, Dunlap, Hanson, Walker, Sawyer, Moni, Slander,
Bfford, Slowgan, and Baker for denying Plaintiff tools to clean his
cell.

Count 2: Eighth Amendment claim against McQueen, Johnson, Neikirk,
Mueller, Dunlap, Lenear, Walker, Sawyer, Riggs, Stover, Baker,
Reed, Taylor, and Purdue for failing to maintain clean and sanitary
conditions in the showers.

Count 3: Eighth Amendment claim against McQueen, Johnson 1, Neikirk,
Mueller, John Does 5-12, Dunlap, Hanson, Lenear, Walker, Sawyer
Ramiso, Arrow, Mukus, Wallance, Harmon, Medler, New,
Richardson, Riggs, Stover, Huntly, Bfford, Slowgan, Baker, Reed,
Taylor, Brown, Robert, Burtis, Yonols, Bridgewell, Slander, Hill,
Ackerman, Zollous, Piper, Titwell, Purdue, Thomas, Doreese,
Cooper, Fiers, Tibble, Howard, Hunly, and Butler for serving
Plaintiff cold meal trays.

Count 4: Eighth Amendment claim against Harmon for serving Plaintiff
oatmeal contaminated with rat feces on April 17, 2020.

Count 5: Eighth Amendment claim against Johnson 1, Dunlap, Lenear,
Ramiso, Mukus, and Harmon for subjecting Plaintiff to extremely
cold temperatures from April 1 through April 22, 2020.

Count 6: Eighth Amendment claim against Dunlap, Riggs, Titwell, and Gives
for failing to follow proper COVID-19 safety procedures in
November and December 2020.

Count 7: Eighth Amendment claim against William, John Does 13-35, and
Johnson 2 for subjecting Plaintiff to sleep deprivation from May 3
through May 13, 2021.

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 Twombly2 pleading standard.
Unconstitutional Conditions of Confinement Standard
Prison conditions that deprive inmates of basic human needs – food, medical care,

2 See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
sanitation, or physical safety – may violate the Eighth Amendment, and a prison official may be
held liable for deliberate indifference to the risk of harm to the inmate from those conditions. See
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346 (1981);
James v. Milwaukee Cnty., 956 F.2d 696, 699 (7th Cir. 1992).

The conditions experienced by an inmate must be severe to support an Eighth Amendment
claim.” Perkins v. English, No. 22-cv-1053-DRL-MGG, 2023 WL 2571717, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Mar.
20, 2023). “[T]he Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons.” Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 349
(1981). “Prison conditions may be harsh and uncomfortable without violating the Eighth
Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.” Rice ex rel. Rice v. Corr. Med.
Servs., 675 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2012).
Count 1
Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the conditions of his cell in wing A and a lack of cleaning
supplies fail to state a plausible Eighth Amendment claim. First, Plaintiff’s claim that his cell had
constant dirt and dust that caused cold symptoms does not rise to the level of a serious deprivation

required to violate the constitution. Further, assuming that the adverse conditions did deny Plaintiff
of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,” each Defendants’ involvement in the
conditions of his cell and whether they knew there was an objectively excessive risk to Plaintiff’s
health and safety is not articulated in the Complaint. See Gray v. Hardy, 826 F. 3d 1000, 1005 (7th
Cir. 2016) (discussing the elements of a conditions of confinement claim). Plaintiff states that he
sent slips requesting cleaning supplies to officers of his wing, John Does 1-4, and that he was
denied cleaning supplies at various points in time “by” Correctional Officers McQueen, Johnson
1, Neikirk, Dunlap, Hanson, Walker, Sawyer, Moni, Slander, Bfford, Slowgan, Baker and Purdue.
There is nothing in the Complaint from which the Court can infer that Defendants knew of and

ignored a substantial risk of severe injury caused by his cell conditions. Id. (recognizing “Eighth
Amendment violations where prisoners are deprived of cleaning supplies and running water only
in extreme circumstances”). Plaintiff’s allegations regarding denial of cleaning supplies for his cell
are dismissed without prejudice.
Count 2

Conversely, the shower conditions, clogged drains resulting in standing water and exposure
to human waste, sufficiently describes a serious deprivation. See Hardeman v. Curran, 933 F. 3d
816, 821 (7th Cir. 2019) (“continued exposure to human excrement can violate the Eighth
Amendment”). Plaintiff has failed, however, to allege that Defendants were put on notice of the
risk to his health and failed to abate that risk. He states that the unsanitary shower conditions
occurred because Defendants did not allow the inmate workers out of their cells to clean the
showers before the inmates went to dayroom and that Defendants did not allow inmates to return
to their cells following dayroom to use the toilets prior to going to the showers, which resulted in
inmates urinating in the showers. Nothing in the Complaint suggests that Defendants were
subjectively aware that the showers were dirty and needed cleaning or that Plaintiff had contracted

a fungus from the shower conditions. Accordingly, Count 2 is dismissed without prejudice.
Count 3
Plaintiff’s claims that he was served cold meals that often included spoiled milk and
resulted in stomach pains are also dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff asserts that 53 Defendants
“subjected” him to cold meal trays by not keeping the food in warmers and allowing the trays to
become cold before serving them to the inmates. This allegation is too vague to state a claim for
an Eighth Amendment violation. Simply serving cold food, standing alone, does not violate an
inmate’s rights, and Plaintiff does not describe any conduct on the part of individual defendants or
how they were put on notice of and disregarded a risk to his health. See Vinegar v. Fairman, 1995

WL 769758, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 29, 1995) (“[t]he Constitution requires only that inmates receive
adequate nutrition. Food that is not aesthetically pleasing or tasty does not violate an inmate’s civil
rights”). These claims are dismissed.
Count 4
The Court also dismisses Plaintiff’s claim regarding receiving oatmeal containing rat feces.

He states that on April 17, 2020, he received a bowl of oatmeal containing rat feces. Plaintiff
alleges that when he noticed the feces, he requested another four breakfast trays, and they all also
contained rat feces. The only time Plaintiff claims he received contaminated food was on the
morning of April 17. This isolated incident does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
As other courts in this Circuit have recognized, “allegations about occasional instances of food
contamination in a prison ‘will not support a claim of deliberate indifference to conditions of
confinement.’” Morris v. Buege, No. 23-cv-11-99, 2023 WL 2465882, at *3 (E.D Wisc. Mar. 10,
2023) (quoting Olrich v. Kenosha Cty., No. 18-cv-1980-pp, 2020 WL 1169959 (E.D. Wis. Mar.
11, 2020)). See also Franklin v. True, 76 F. 3d 381, (7th Cir. 1996) (unpublished opinion) (one
instance of food poisoning is insufficient to state conditions-of-confinement claim); Jackson v.

Lang, No. 09 C 5123, 2010 WL 3210762, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 10, 2010) (one incident of finding
rodent parts in a meal did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation) (collecting cases). Count
4 is dismissed without prejudice.
Count 5
The Court also finds that Plaintiff has not stated a plausible claim for deliberate
indifference regarding the cold temperatures in his cell in April 2020. Plaintiff states he was
subjected to extreme cold and that he complained to Defendants Ramiso, Harmon, Mukus, Johnson
1, Lenear, and Dunlap during their shifts “because the heat was not on.” (Doc. 1, p. 33). He does
not describe or indicate what Defendants did or failed to do in response to his complaints that

amounted to deliberate indifference. Middleton v. Vinardi, No. 19-cv-00516-JPH-DLP, 2021 WL
4066703, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 7, 2021) (“[e]xposure to extreme cold without alternative means
to keep warm constitutes cruel and unusual punishment”) (citing Flores v. O’Donnell, 36 F. App’x
204, 206-07 (7th Cir. 2002). These allegations are too sparse for the Court to infer that Defendants
Ramiso, Harmon, Mukus, Johnson 1, Lenear, and Dunlap disregarded a risk to Plaintiff’s health

and safety.
Count 6
While the presence of COVID-19 in the prisons presents a substantial risk of serious harm,
Plaintiff has failed to plead that Defendants acted with “total unconcern for [his] welfare.” Rosario
v. Brawn, 670 F. 3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff claims that Dunlap and Riggs frequently
did not promptly open cell doors when Plaintiff was returning back to his cell, forcing him to wait
and stand near other inmates. Additionally, Dunlap, Riggs, Titwell and Gives did not always wear
gloves when opening cell doors. The conduct, as pled, demonstrates negligence, and does not rise
to the level of deliberate indifference.
Plaintiff further complains of other unsafe practices regarding COVID-19 implemented at

Lawrence that he believes put him at risk of contracting the virus. These practices, however, are
not asserted against any specific Defendant and are dismissed without prejudice.
Count 7
Finally, Plaintiff claims that 25 Defendants subjected him to sleep deprivation for ten days
when the cell count light in his cell was broken. While it took ten days to fix the light, the Court
does not find that this incident rises to the level of cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the
Constitution. Count 7 is dismissed.
LEAVE TO AMEND
Because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim, his Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend his Complaint. Although in this instance, the Court
considered the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s claims before assessing whether his claims were properly
joined, it does appear that Plaintiff has improperly joined claims and parties in this case. Rule 20
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prohibits a plaintiff from asserting unrelated claims against
different defendants or sets of defendants in the same lawsuit. Additionally, Plaintiff has been

warned about filing large, complex Complaints against multiple defendants with seemingly
unrelated claims. See Walker v. No. 22-cv-1164-NJR (S.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2022) (Doc. 7). In his
amended complaint, Plaintiff should limit his claims to only those which are properly joined.
DISPOSITION
For the reasons stated above, the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure
to state claim for relief pursuant to Section 1915A.
Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file a “First Amended Complaint” on or before June 7,
2023. Should Plaintiff fail to file a First Amended Complaint within the allotted time or consistent
with the instructions set forth in this Order, the entire case shall be dismissed with prejudice for
failure to state claim, failure to comply with a court order, and/or for failure to prosecute his claims.

FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga,
34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
An amended complaint generally supersedes and replaces the original complaint, rendering
the original complaint void. See Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n.
1 (7th Cir. 2004). The Court will not accept piecemeal amendments to the original Complaint. The
First Amended Complaint must stand on its own without reference to any previous pleading, and
Plaintiff must re-file any exhibits he wishes the Court to consider along with the First Amended
Complaint. The First Amended Complaint is also subject to review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Plaintiff is further ADVISED that his obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was

incurred at the time the action was filed, thus the filing fee remains due and payable, regardless of
whether he elects to file a First Amended Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Lucien v.
Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).
Finally, Plaintiff 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: May 10, 2023

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10156426. Public record. Not legal advice.