Nolan

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ANTHONY M. NOLAN, )

Y24615, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 3:25-cv-01136-GCS

)

ANTHONY WILLS, )

TARA CHARDDERTON, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

SISON, Magistrate Judge:

Plaintiff Anthony M. Nolan, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections

(“IDOC”) who is currently detained at Menard Correctional Center, brings this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional

rights. Specifically, Nolan faults Wills for conditions of his confinement, and he faults

Chardderton for inadequate medical care. Nolan’s initial complaint was dismissed for

failure to plead a sufficient claim (Doc. 12), and he has now filed a timely amended

complaint. (Doc. 13, 14).

This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Amended

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.1 Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to

1 The Court has jurisdiction to resolve Nolan’s motions and to screen his Complaint

due to his consent to the full jurisdiction of a magistrate judge (Doc. 8) and the limited

consent to the exercise of magistrate judge jurisdiction as set forth in the Memorandums

of Understanding between the IDOC, Wexford, and the Court.

screen prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-

(b). Any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Nolan alleges that he was transferred to Menard on October 4, 2024, and upon

arrival he went about two weeks without sheets, blankets, toilet paper, toothpaste, or

cleaning supplies. (Doc. 14, p. 6). He further alleges the toilet was leaking, there was black

mold on his toilet and in a corner of the cell, and the showers on the gallery were moldy.

Nolan is an asthmatic, and he alleges the black mold irritates his breathing. He wrote

Warden Wills about the issue but has not received a response or any remediation of the

conditions. (Doc. 1, p. 6-7).

As for Defendant Chardderton, Nolan alleges that he has written her about a lump

in his stomach and severe pain, but he has not received satisfactory treatment. (Doc. 14,

p. 6-7). He alleges that he has seen blood in his urine, his urine is dark in color, and the

only treatment he has received is Tylenol, which has not helped. He further alleges that

he cannot sleep due to the pain from the lump, and he has trouble keeping food down,

sometimes going 4-5 days without eating. He alleges he has written Defendant

Chardderton with a detailed description of his pain and the lump, but he has not received

care. He is concerned that the lump may be a hernia and that it could rupture and cause

permanent damage without treatment. (Doc. 14, p. 7).

In support, Plaintiff submitted various documentation, including several

documents about disciplinary proceedings (that do not appear relevant to his allegations

in this complaint), letters to attorneys, and letters to the Court. In one letter, Plaintiff

explains that he is now vomiting blood, and the lump is causing extreme pain. (Doc. 14,

p. 24). In addition to the exhibits attached directly to the amended complaint, Nolan also

submitted “affidavits,” which contain redundant factual allegations about his conditions

and medical condition. (Doc. 15, 18).

DISCUSSION

Based on the allegations in the Amended Complaint, the Court finds it convenient

to divide the pro se action into the following counts:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against

Defendant Wills concerning his conditions of confinement

at Menard from October of 2024-September of 2025;

Count 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against

Defendant Chardderton for failing to address Plaintiff’s

medical needs from October of 2024-September of 2025.

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 claim that is mentioned

in the Amended Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be considered

dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly pleading standard.2

2 See, e.g., Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (noting that an action

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts

to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”).

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Nolan submitted two amended

complaints. (Doc. 13, 14). Both appear to contain the same factual narrative, but the

second version had a few additional pages of exhibits, so the Court reviewed the second

version (Doc. 14). To the extent that Nolan submitted additional letters (Doc. 15, 18), the

Court briefly reviewed the contents but did not read the letters as adding additional

factual allegations to the complaint itself. As the Court explained in its earlier Order,

piecemeal amendments are not appropriate (Doc. 12), so if Nolan wishes to expand the

factual basis for his claims, he will need to submit a future amended complaint that

contains all facts in his own narrative section, rather than as individual exhibits.

To establish a conditions of confinement claim, an inmate must establish (1) a

deprivation that is, from an objective standpoint, sufficiently serious that it results in the

denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities, and (2) where prison officials

are deliberately indifferent to this state of affairs. See Gray v. Hardy, 826 F.3d 1000, 1005

(7th Cir. 2016) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 824 (1994)). Conditions may be

considered collectively when analyzing a conditions of confinement claim, and the

duration of the allegedly harmful conditions is relevant to the existence of an Eighth

Amendment violation. Id. Many of these conditions standing alone are not sufficient to

give rise to an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim, but they must also

be considered collectively. See Gillis v. Litscher, 468 F.3d 488, 493 (7th Cir. 2006). Although

“the Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons,” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S.

337, 349 (1981), inmates are entitled to adequate food, clothing, shelter, bedding, hygiene

materials, and sanitation. See Knight v. Wiseman, 590 F.3d 458, 463 (7th Cir. 2009).

As with the original complaint, Nolan again faults Defendant Wills for black mold

in his cell and in communal showers. He also complains that for two weeks he lacked

bedding and hygiene supplies. He says the mold causes trouble breathing but does not

attribute any harm to the brief lack of supplies. Because Nolan has not associated the two-

week lack of supplies with a harm, he cannot proceed on that portion of his amended

complaint. As for the mold, he now alleges that it is “bothering [his] breathing” and that

he has contacted Wills about the issue to no avail. (Doc. 14, p. 6). The Court still finds

these allegations insufficient to sustain a conditions claim because Nolan does not

describe a distinct change in his health in relation to the mold, nor does he specifically

explain if he complained to Wills only about the presence of mold or also about the

asthma implications. Although Courts have allowed conditions claims to proceed related

to black mold and extensive health impacts3, the Court is not yet persuaded that Nolan

experienced extensive impacts that were worse than his typical problems associated with

asthma4. Therefore, Claim 1 will again be dismissed without prejudice as insufficiently

pled.

3 See, e.g., Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 486 (7th Cir. 2005) (noting there is no

question that exposing inmates to a ventilation system contaminated with black mold is

contrary to the Eighth Amendment); Johnson v. Coffee, No. 1:19-cv-03313-SEB-TAB, 2021

WL 1814927, at *4-5 (S.D. Ind. May 5, 2021) (allowing an Eighth Amendment claim about

black mold that allegedly caused migraines, shortness of breath, sinus infections, and

wheezing to proceed to trial). But see Hogan v. Vanihel, No. 2:22-cv-00294-JMS-MJD, 2024

WL 3988984, at *4-5 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 29, 2024) (granting summary judgment to defendants

concerning alleged black mold exposure that caused headaches, difficulty breathing, nose

bleeds, and high blood pressure).

4 See, e.g., Simmons v. Heeg, Cause No.: 3:25-CV-58-TLS-AZ, 2025 WL 856757, at *2

(N.D. Ind. Mar. 19, 2025) (finding that black mold typically does not cause serious illness,

Under the Eighth Amendment, inmates are entitled to adequate medical care. See

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). To establish liability under the Eighth

Amendment, a prisoner must show: (1) his medical need was objectively serious; and (2)

the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to his medical need. See Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). For the first step of the analysis, a serious medical

condition “is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one

that is so obvious that even a lay person would perceive the need for a doctor's attention.”

Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005). Some of the indications of a serious

medical condition include whether if untreated it could result in “further significant

injury or unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” it “significantly affects an

individual's daily activities,” or it features “chronic and substantial pain.” Gutierrez v.

Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1373 (7th Cir. 1997) (cleaned up). At the second step, to determine

if a medical professional acted with deliberate indifference, courts look to the provider’s

subjective state of mind. See Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722, 727 (7th Cir. 2016). An inmate

need not show that a doctor explicitly intended harm or believed it would occur, but he

must show more than negligence, medical malpractice, or even objective recklessness. Id.

Deliberate indifference is a culpability standard akin to criminal recklessness. See Thomas

v. Blackard, 2 F.4th 716, 722 (7th Cir. 2021).

Nolan’s allegations against Chardderton are now sufficient to proceed on Claim 2

with regards to his need for treatment for a lump in his stomach. Nolan alleges that he

though it could aggravate asthma, and finding at initial review that an inmate had not

sufficiently linked the conditions to his headaches and stomach aches).

has been seeking care for the lump for many months, that he has only received Tylenol

which has been ineffective, and that his symptoms are now making it difficult for him to

eat for days at a time. Allegations in a letter he attached directly to the amended

complaint suggest that in recent months he has been vomiting blood, and the complaint

explains he has been unable to eat for 4-5 days in a row and has trouble sleeping. These

issues are all suggestive of a serious medical need. Nolan alleges he has relayed his

problems to Chardderton in detailed written correspondence, but he is not receiving care.

Claim 2 may proceed as pled.

DISPOSITION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Claim 2 of the Amended Complaint (Doc. 14)

survives initial screening as described above against Tara Chardderton. By contrast,

Claim 1 against Anthony Wills is insufficient to state a claim, and the Clerk of Court is

DIRECTED to TERMINATE Wills.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to prepare for Defendant Tara Chardderton: (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 Amended Complaint (Doc. 14), and this Memorandum and Order to Defendants’

place of employment as identified by Plaintiff. If 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

Defendant, and the Court will require Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service,

to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

If a Defendant cannot be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the

employer shall furnish the Clerk with the 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 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 timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to

the Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g).

Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 244, Defendants need only respond to the issues

stated in this Merits Review Order.

If judgment is rendered against Plaintiff, and the judgment includes the payment

of costs under Section 1915, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full amount of the costs,

regardless of whether his application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).

Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to inform the Clerk

of Court and each opposing party of any address changes; the Court will not

independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later

than 14 days after a transfer or other change of 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 failure to prosecute. See FED. R. CIV. PROC. 41(b).

Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to

enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability

and Accountability Act.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Digitally signed by

DATED: November 6, 2025. tesa _ Judge Sison

Seek 0. Dadse Date: 2025.11.06

14:04:35 -06'00'

GILBERT C. SISON

United States Magistrate 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.

The Court wishes to remind the Plaintiff that litigation is often viewed a series of hurdles

that the Plaintiff must clear to get to another hurdle. Initial screening is such a hurdle, but

it is a very low one for the Plaintiff to clear. As noted above, surviving initial screening

only requires the bare statement of a claim that, if proven, could entitle Plaintiff to some

relief. At trial, he will need to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the facts alleged

actually occurred and that those facts satisfy the legal requirements for recovery. Trial is

the highest and most difficult of hurdles for any Plaintiff to clear.

Page 9 of 9