Adrian Thomas v. James Blackard

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-1718

ADRIAN THOMAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JAMES S. BLACKARD and TODD PUNKE,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Central District of Illinois.

No. 1:18-cv-01122 — Sara Darrow, Chief Judge.

____________________

SUBMITTED MAY 24, 2021 * — DECIDED JUNE 28, 2021

____________________

Before HAMILTON, SCUDDER, and KIRSCH, Circuit Judges.

SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Adrian Thomas sued several

prison officials at Pontiac Correctional Center in Illinois alleg-

ing they violated the Eighth Amendment by restricting him

* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because

the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments,

and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(C).

2 No. 20-1718

for two months to a cell with feces on the walls, a mattress

covered in human waste, a bunk bed with a hundred dead

flies, and inadequate plumbing that caused him to develop a

rash. Had the officials done nothing in response to Thomas’s

complaints, they would have violated the Constitution’s pro-

hibition on cruel and unusual punishment. But, relying on un-

disputed evidence showing that the prison responded to

Thomas’s concerns and medical needs, the district court en-

tered summary judgment for the officials. We affirm.

I

Thomas moved to a new cell on October 24, 2017. By his

account, the cell was disgusting. Thomas claimed there were

feces, urine, and mold smeared on the walls, sink, and cell

door; the mattress was soiled with feces and reeked of urine;

there were roughly one hundred dead flies on the bunk bed;

and the sink emitted only cold, black, and oily water. Thomas

complained orally and in written grievances about these con-

ditions until he was transferred to another prison two months

later.

In the meantime, Pontiac officials mitigated most of the is-

sues in Thomas’s cell. After Thomas complained about his

mattress, prison officials got him a new one within two weeks.

In those two weeks, Thomas used his sheets and blanket to

avoid contact with the soiled mattress. Thomas also received

gloves, which allowed him to remove the dead flies. To ad-

dress the feces smeared on the walls, Thomas had a towel for

cleaning and received a cup of a disinfectant solution at least

six times during his eight-week stay in the cell. The feces re-

mained in his cell, however, as Thomas admits that he refused

to use the solvent to clean the walls.

No. 20-1718 3

As for the lack of hot water, prison officials knew of the

problem and ordered a repair in September 2017, before

Thomas had even moved into the cell. While awaiting the re-

pair, the officials allowed Thomas three hot showers per

week, and the engineering staff attempted the repair in No-

vember but were unsuccessful. Pontiac’s water supply under-

went regular testing and met all environmental requirements.

Shortly after moving to the new cell, Thomas sought treat-

ment for dry skin and a rash on his back. A health worker

noted “a small clogged pore on [his] midback,” recom-

mended warm moist compresses, and told Thomas to return

to sick call as needed. Thomas responded by saying he lacked

access in his own cell to hot water, but he then managed to

obtain hot water for the compresses from a neighboring in-

mate. Thomas sought no further medical care during the re-

mainder of his time at Pontiac.

Thomas later invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sued multiple

correctional officials, asserting Eighth Amendment claims re-

garding his cell conditions and medical treatment at Pontiac.

At screening, the district court dismissed all but two defend-

ants, James Blackard and Todd Punke. Following discovery,

the district court entered summary judgment for Blackard

and Punke, concluding that Thomas was exposed to the cell’s

poor conditions only briefly and the Pontiac staff addressed

the issues without delay. As for the medical claim, the court

determined that Thomas had failed to present evidence that

his rash was serious enough to implicate the Eighth Amend-

ment.

Thomas now appeals.

4 No. 20-1718

II

A

Although “the Constitution does not mandate comforta-

ble prisons,” it does mandate humane ones. Rhodes v. Chap-

man, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981); see Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

825, 832 (1994). By prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment,

the Eighth Amendment imposes duties on prison officials to

“provide humane conditions of confinement” and “ensure

that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and

medical care.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832. An official who fails to

uphold these duties violates the Eighth Amendment upon ex-

hibiting “deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of seri-

ous harm to an inmate.” Id. at 828.

This deliberate indifference standard includes “both an

objective and subjective component.” Daugherty v. Page,

906 F.3d 606, 611 (7th Cir. 2018); see Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. A

prisoner challenging conditions of confinement must first

show that the conditions were sufficiently serious as an objec-

tive matter, meaning “that they den[ied] the inmate ‘the min-

imal civilized measure of life’s necessities,’ creating an exces-

sive risk to the inmate’s health and safety.” Isby v. Brown,

856 F.3d 508, 521 (7th Cir. 2017) (internal citation omitted)

(quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347). Second, in covering the sub-

jective component of the inquiry, the inmate must prove that

prison officials acted with deliberate indifference—that they

knew of and disregarded this excessive risk of harm to the in-

mate. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; Williams v. Shah, 927 F.3d

476, 480 (7th Cir. 2019).

Thomas challenges the district court’s entry of summary

judgment for the defendants. In this procedural posture, we

No. 20-1718 5

owe Thomas our own fresh look at the record, reviewing it in

the light most favorable to him as the nonmoving party. See

Bridges v. Dart, 950 F.3d 476, 478 (7th Cir. 2020).

B

Thomas rooted his § 1983 claims in the allegedly inhu-

mane conditions of his cell and the prison’s treatment of his

skin condition. Having undertaken our own review, we agree

with the district court’s assessment that no reasonable jury

could conclude that Blackard and Punke violated Thomas’s

rights under the Eighth Amendment.

An essential teaching of Farmer v. Brennan—indeed the

central essence of the Eighth Amendment—is that prisoners

cannot be confined in inhumane conditions. See 511 U.S. at

832. Doing so deprives an inmate of the “minimal civilized

measure of life’s necessities” and satisfies the objective re-

quirement for an Eighth Amendment claim. Rhodes, 452 U.S.

at 347; see also Vinning-El v. Long, 482 F.3d 923, 924 (7th Cir.

2007) (collecting cases that clearly establish that holding an

inmate in a cell smeared with feces and blood, and lacking

running water or a mattress, creates an excessive risk to health

and objectively amounts to the deprivation of humane condi-

tions).

The Supreme Court reinforced these precise points in Tay-

lor v. Riojas, holding that prison officials were not entitled to

qualified immunity where they confined an inmate for four

days in a cell covered floor to ceiling with feces, followed by

two days in a frigid cell with a clogged drain overflowing

with bodily waste, forcing the inmate to sleep naked on the

floor in raw sewage. See 141 S. Ct. 52, 53–54 (2020) (per cu-

riam). The Court had no reservations in concluding that such

6 No. 20-1718

conditions “violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on

cruel and unusual punishment” and, even more, that “any

reasonable officer should have realized that [the inmate’s]

conditions of confinement offended the Constitution.” Id.

But to prove a violation of the Eighth Amendment, a pris-

oner must go beyond allegations and produce evidence not

only of the inhumane conditions, but also that officials were

subjectively aware of these conditions and refused to take

steps to correct them, showing deliberate indifference. See

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837; Daugherty, 906 F.3d at 611 (affirming

entry of summary judgment for prison officials because no ev-

idence showed the officials were aware of the alleged uncon-

stitutional conditions).

The initial cell conditions Thomas described, if true, were

inhumane, as they posed an excessive risk to his health and

deprived him of the “minimal civilized measure of life’s ne-

cessities.” Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347. Prison officials, we have un-

derscored, must “provide inmates with ‘reasonably adequate

ventilation, sanitation, bedding, hygienic materials, and utili-

ties.’” Hardeman v. Curran, 933 F.3d 816, 820 (7th Cir. 2019)

(quoting Gray v. Hardy, 826 F.3d 1000, 1005 (7th Cir. 2016)).

Thomas’s assertions of feces-covered walls, a lack of hot wa-

ter, hundreds of dead flies in his bed, and a mattress covered

in human waste no doubt establish a material dispute on the

objective prong of an Eighth Amendment claim. Indeed, these

purported cell conditions are not far from the “deplorably un-

sanitary conditions” decried in Taylor. 141 S. Ct. at 53.

But that is not the end of the matter. Unlike in Taylor,

Thomas failed to point to evidence that prison officials re-

sponded with deliberate indifference to the abysmal cell con-

ditions. See id. at 53–54. To the contrary, the record shows that

No. 20-1718 7

officials reacted reasonably: Thomas promptly received a

new, unsoiled mattress, several cups of disinfecting solvent to

clean the walls, and gloves to remove the dead flies from his

bunk bed. As for his complaint that his cell lacked hot water,

Pontiac officials provided him with three hot showers per

week while awaiting repair of the faucet. On this record, no

reasonable jury could conclude these officials responded with

deliberate indifference to Thomas’s cell conditions. See

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844 (explaining that prison officials “may

be found free from liability if they responded reasonably to

the risk”); cf. Johnson v. Pelker, 891 F.2d 136, 139 (7th Cir. 1989)

(suggesting that prison officials may have violated the Eighth

Amendment where they ignored an inmate’s request for

cleaning supplies and water access while the inmate was

housed for three days in a cell smeared with feces and without

running water).

Thomas admits that he received disinfectant but contends

that the cold and dirty running water in his cell was unfit to

use with the solvent for cleaning. But Thomas furnished no

evidence that he ever told Blackard or Punke that he could not

use the cleanser with the cell’s running water to remove the

feces. So Thomas cannot establish that the officials’ response

was unreasonable. See Daugherty, 906 F.3d at 611–12 (“[N]o

reasonable jury could find that [the defendants] acted with

deliberate indifference” when “there is no evidence that either

of them was specifically aware of the particular conditions

forming the basis of [the plaintiff’s] Eighth Amendment

claim.”).

In a grievance, Thomas also complained that the cell’s tap

water was undrinkable. Although a lack of drinking water can

constitute a separate Eighth Amendment violation, see

8 No. 20-1718

Hardeman, 933 F.3d at 820–21, Thomas has not developed any

argument to this effect on appeal. Nor does he dispute that

the prison’s water supply was regularly tested and met envi-

ronmental requirements. In short, Thomas has not created a

triable issue concerning a lack of clean drinking water.

We pause to highlight one particular statement Thomas

made in his appellate brief. He stated he “endured 35 days in

a cell without working or running water.” This statement

caught our attention, for a complete deprivation of running

water for that length of time, coupled with the cell’s filthy con-

ditions, would offend the Eighth Amendment. See id. (collect-

ing cases). But Thomas’s assertion is belied by the record evi-

dence: he testified at his deposition that the cell’s faucet pro-

duced cold running water for the two months that he was con-

fined there. Our review of the record shows that Thomas has

failed to show that he lacked access to running water in his

cell or otherwise for over a month.

C

Thomas pressed a second Eighth Amendment claim stem-

ming from the prison’s treatment of his skin condition. Prison

officials can be liable for violating the Eighth Amendment

when they display deliberate indifference towards an objec-

tively serious medical need, meaning “one that has been di-

agnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is

so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the

necessity for a doctor’s attention.” King v. Kramer, 680 F.3d

1013, 1018 (7th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted); see also Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976).

The district court correctly concluded that, based on un-

disputed evidence, no reasonable jury could find that

No. 20-1718 9

Thomas’s skin condition presented an objectively serious

medical need. Thomas had only a “small clogged pore” on his

back that was treatable with warm compresses (which he re-

ceived), and he never returned to sick call or suffered any lin-

gering effects. Not “every ache and pain or medically recog-

nized condition involving some discomfort can support an

Eighth Amendment claim,” and Thomas has not adduced any

evidence that his clogged pore was sufficiently serious.

Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1372 (7th Cir. 1997); see also

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992) (“Because society

does not expect that prisoners will have unqualified access to

health care, deliberate indifference to medical needs amounts

to an Eighth Amendment violation only if those needs are ‘se-

rious.’”). Even if he had, Thomas also failed to identify any

evidence showing that Blackard or Punke manifested deliber-

ate indifference to his skin condition, a culpability standard

akin to criminal recklessness. See King, 680 F.3d at 1018.

The conditions of confinement Thomas encountered at

Pontiac are troubling. But prison officials took steps to ad-

dress the inadequacies. Because Thomas has not produced ev-

idence of deliberate indifference by Blackard and Punke, we

AFFIRM.