Opinion
3:21-CV-643-JD-MGG
11-12-2021
DAMARCUS D. JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM HYATTE, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
JON E. DEGUILIO CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Damarcus D. Jackson, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint about the cell conditions in A-Dorm at the Miami Correctional Facility. ECF 1. “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Jackson alleges that as of August 24, 2020, he was housed in Miami's A-Dorm in Room 149 with no working lights, no windows, and with dangerous exposed wires. He asserts that he contacted Warden William Hyatte multiple times to fix the problems, but the warden never answered or responded in the three months he lived in that dorm.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits conditions of confinement that deny inmates “the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.” Townsend v. Fuchs, 522 F.3d 765, 773 (7th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). In evaluating an Eighth Amendment claim, courts conduct both an objective and a subjective inquiry. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). The objective prong asks whether the alleged deprivation is “sufficiently serious” that the action or inaction of a prison official leads to “the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.” Id. (citations omitted). Although “the Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, ” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981), inmates are entitled to adequate food, light, clothing, shelter, bedding, hygiene materials, sanitation, and medical care. Knight v. Wiseman, 590 F.3d 458, 463 (7th Cir. 2009); Gillis v. Litscher, 468 F.3d 488, 493 (7th Cir. 2006). On the subjective prong, the prisoner must show the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to his health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 478 (7th Cir. 2005). Giving Jackson the inferences to which he is entitled at this stage, he has alleged a plausible claim that he has been denied the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities by being held in a cell with no working lights, no window, and exposed wires for months.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS Damarcus D. Jackson leave to proceed against Warden William Hyatte in his individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages for keeping him in a cell with no working lights, no windows, and exposed wires for three months beginning on August 24, 2020, in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
(2) DISMISSES all other claims;
(3) DIRECTS the clerk to request Waiver of Service from (and if necessary, the United States Marshals Service to serve process on) Warden William Hyatte at the Indiana Department of Correction, with a copy of this order and the complaint (ECF 1), under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d);
(5) ORDERS the Indiana Department of Correction to provide the full name, date of birth, and last known home address of any defendant who does not waive service if it has such information; and
(6) ORDERS, under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), Warden Williams Hyatte to respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claims for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order.
SO ORDERED