Exposure to black mold may, in an appropriate case, be sufficiently serious as to satisfy the objective component of the Eighth Amendment. Compare Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 486-87 (7th Cir. 2005) (concluding that mold in the ventilation system violates Eighth Amendment), with Causey v. Allison, No. 1:08CV155-RHW, 2008 WL 4191746, at *1 (S.D.Miss. Sept. 9, 2008) (finding no Eighth Amendment violation where prisoner claimed black mold was growing in the shower but “admits that he has had no medical problems resulting from the black mold”); see also McIntyre v. Phillips, No. 1:07-cv-527, 2007 WL 2986470, at *2-4 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 10, 2007) (dismissing prisoner action and holding that “some exposure to black mold is a risk society has chosen to tolerate”)
Claims of the presence of black mold, alone, do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See Causey v. Allison, No. 1:08cv155, 2008 WL 4191746 (S.D.Miss., September 9, 2008) (allegation of black mold in the shower did not set out a constitutional claim); Eaton v. Magee, No. 2:10cv112, 2012 WL 2459398 (S.D.Miss., June 27, 2012) (claim that bathroom and shower contain black mold did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation); Barnett v. Shaw, No. 3:11cv0399, 2011 WL 2200610 (N.D. Tex., May 18, 2011) (claim of “excessive amount of black mold in the showers and sinks” did not raise a claim for a constitutional violation); Reynolds v. Newcomer, No. 09-1077, 2010 WL 234896 (W.D. La., January 19, 2010) (black mold in the living areas, eating areas, and shower areas did not set out a constitutional claim). Similarly, “[c]onstitutional standards also are not violated merely because flies, bugs, ants, and mosquitos are present.”
Exposure to black mold may, in an appropriate case, be sufficiently serious as to satisfy the objective component of the Eighth Amendment. See Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 48687 (7th Cir. 2005) (discussing that mold in the ventilation system violates the Eighth Amendment); cf Causey v. Allison, No. 1:08-cv-155-RHW, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72071 (S.D.Miss. Sept. 9, 2008) (concluding that there was no Eighth Amendment violation where prisoner claimed black mold was growing in the shower but admitted that “he has had no medical problems resulting from the black mold”); McIntyre v. Phillips, No. 1:07-cv-527, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77859, at *8 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 10, 2007)
Exposure to black mold may, in an appropriate case, be sufficiently serious as to satisfy the objective component of the Eighth Amendment. See Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 486-87 (7th Cir. 2005) (discussing that mold in the ventilation system violates Eighth Amendment), Causey v. Allison, No. 1:08-cv-155-RHW, 2008 WL 4197746, at *1 (S.D.Miss. Sept. 9, 2008) (concluding that there was no Eighth Amendment violation where prisoner claimed black mold was growing in the shower but admitted that “he has had no medical problems resulting from the black mold”); McIntyre v. Phillips, No. 1:07-cv-527, 2007 WL 2986470, at *2-4 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 10, 2007)
Exposure to black mold may, in an appropriate case, be sufficiently serious as to satisfy the objective component of the Eighth Amendment. See Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 486-87 (7th Cir. 2005) (mold in the ventilation system violates Eighth Amendment); Causey v. Allison, No. 1:08-cv-155-RHW, 2008 WL 4191746, at *1 (S.D.Miss. Sept. 9, 2008) (concluding that there was no Eighth Amendment violation where prisoner claimed black mold was growing in the shower but admitted that “he has had no medical problems resulting from the black mold”); McIntyre v. Phillips, No. 1:07-cv-527, 2007 WL 2986470, at *2-4 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 10, 2007) (dismissing prisoner action and holding that “some exposure to black mold is a risk that society has chosen to tolerate”). Here, Plaintiff does not suggest that the mold is airborne.
He makes numerous fabrications that are clearly contradicted by the record. See Williams v. Perry, 2016 WL 6304748, at *3 (S.D.Miss. Oct. 27, 2016); Causey v. Allison, 2008 WL 4191746, at *3 (S.D.Miss. Sept. 9, 2008). Boyd should be cautioned that if he acquires three or more strikes, he shall be barred from proceeding in forma pauperis unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Exposure to black mold that is airborne and can be inhaled into the lungs may be sufficiently serious to give rise to an Eighth Amendment claim, but exposure to black mold through skin contact is a different matter. Compare Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 486-87 (7th Cir. 2005) (mold in the ventilation system violates Eighth Amendment), with Causey v. Allison, No. 1:08CV155-RHW, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72071, at *3-4 (S. D. Miss. Sept. 8, 2008) (no Eighth Amendment violation where prisoner claimed black mold was growing in the shower but “admits that he has had no medical problems resulting from the black mold”); see also McIntyre v. Phillips, No. 1:07-cv-527, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77859, at *8 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 10, 2007) (dismissing prisoner action and holding that some exposure to black mold is a risk society has chosen to tolerate); Morales v. White, No. 07-2018, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80659 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 10, 2008) (holding that allegations that black mold is located at some place within a housing unit is not sufficient to support an Eighth Amendment claim).
Exposure to black mold may, in an appropriate case, be sufficiently serious as to satisfy the objective component of the Eighth Amendment. Compare Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 486-87 (7th Cir. 2005) (mold in the ventilation system violates Eighth Amendment), with Causey v. Allison, No. 1:08CV155-RHW, 2008 WL 4191746, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 9, 2008) (no Eighth Amendment violation where prisoner claimed black mold was growing in the shower but "admits that he has had no medical problems resulting from the black mold"); see also McIntyre v. Phillips, No. 1:07-cv-527, 2007 WL 2986470, at *2-4 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 10, 2007) (dismissing prisoner action and holding that "some exposure to black mold is a risk society has chosen to tolerate") (citing Brady v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 05-30716, 2006 WL 551388, at *3 (5th Cir. Mar. 8, 2006) (dismissing action because Plaintiff did not use due diligence in determining whether mold was airborne or simply present in her house)).
Exposure to black mold that is airborne and can be inhaled into the lungs may be sufficiently serious to give rise to an Eighth Amendment claim, but exposure to black mold through skin contact is a different matter. Compare Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 486-87 (7th Cir. 2005) (mold in the ventilation system violates Eighth Amendment), with Causey v. Allison, No. 1:08CV155-RHW, 2008 WL 4191746, at *1 (S. D. Miss. Sept. 9, 2008) (no Eighth Amendment violation where prisoner claimed black mold was growing in the shower but "admits that he has had no medical problems resulting from the black mold"); see also McIntyre v. Phillips, No. 1:07-cv-527, 2007 WL 2986470, at *2-4 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 10, 2007) (dismissing prisoner action and holding that some exposure to black mold is a risk society has chosen to tolerate); Morales v. White, No. 07-2018, 2008 WL 4584340, at *14 (W.D. Tenn. 2008) (holding that allegations that black mold is located at some place within a housing unit is not sufficient to support an Eighth Amendment claim). The Court is not aware of a serious health risk associated with stepping on black mold with one's bare feet, and Plaintiff has not alleged one.
Exposure to black mold may, in an appropriate case, be sufficiently serious as to satisfy the objective component of the Eighth Amendment. Compare Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 486-87 (7th Cir. 2005) (mold in the ventilation system violates Eighth Amendment), with Causey v. Allison, No. 1:08CV155-RHW, 2008 WL 4191746, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 9, 2008) (no Eighth Amendment violation where prisoner claimed black mold was growing in the shower but "admits that he has had no medical problems resulting from the black mold"); see also McIntyre v. Phillips, No. 1:07-cv-527, 2007 WL 2986470, at *2-4 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 10, 2007) (dismissing prisoner action and holding that some exposure to black mold is a risk society has chosen to tolerate) (citing Brady v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 05-30716, 2006 WL 551388, at *3 (5th Cir. Mar. 8, 2006) (dismissing action because the plaintiff did not use due diligence in determining whether mold was airborne or simply present in her house)).