Without more, these conditions are not sufficiently serious to implicate the Constitution. See Landfair v. Sheahan, 878 F. Supp. 1106, 1112 (N.D.Ill. 1995); Lunsford v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1574, 1580 (7th Cir. 1994). Next, Stone-El claims that a lack of showers, toilet paper, and clothing changes, in addition to dirty showers and restrooms, spoiled his personal hygiene.
"[M]ere exposure to mold, mildew, and odors does not amount to 'an excessive risk to inmate health or safety' under the Eighth" or Fourteenth Amendments. See Jordan v. Franks, 2010 WL 4007641, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 30, 2010); see also Herrera v. Oliver, 2019 WL 1217316, at *4 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 14, 2019) (holding that backed up toilet is not a sufficiently serious condition to implicate the Eighth Amendment); Snipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that a backed-up shower drain that caused water to flow into the dayroom was not sufficiently serious to rise to the level of a constitutional violation); Landfair v. Sheahan, 878 F.Supp. 1106, 1112-13 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (shower plumbing deficiencies that caused plaintiff to contract athlete's foot did not rise to level of a constitutional violation).
However, the challenged condition must pose "an unreasonable risk of serious damage to [the prisoner's] future health or safety" to rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278, 1289 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that a prisoner must prove that the prison condition he complains of is sufficiently serious and "extreme" to violate the Eighth Amendment); see also Alfred v. Bryant, 378 F. App'x 977, 980 (11th Cir. 2010) ("'Inmates cannot expect the amenities, conveniences and services of a good hotel.'" (quoting Harris v. Fleming, 839 F.2d 1232, 1235 (7th Cir. 1988)); Snipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 1996) (a backed-up shower drain that caused water to flow into the dayroom was not sufficiently serious to rise to the level of a constitutional violation); Landfair v. Sheahan, 878 F. Supp. 1106, 1112-13 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (shower plumbing deficiencies that caused plaintiff to contract athlete's foot did not rise to level of a constitutional violation). In his complaint, Herrera alleges he was exposed to "raw sewage backing up in his cell and in the shower where there was also a toilet and drain."
a painful, infected rash on his buttocks due to an inability to shower and clean his cell while Pinckneyville was locked down do not show a serious medical condition.") ; Walker v. Dart, 2010 WL 669448, *4 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 19, 2010)("Although uncomfortable, a foot fungus, or athlete's foot, is not a serious medical need or injury."); Cox v. Hartshorn, 503 F.Supp.2d 1078, 1085 (C.D.Ill.2007) (holding that "[a] fungal foot rash" is not an objectively serious medical condition); Rush v. Schrubbe, 2007 WL 2686843, at *2 (E.D.Wis. Sept. 11, 2007)("athlete's foot itself does not generally amount to an objectively serious medical condition"); Sanders v. Allen Cnty. Jail, 2006 WL 2578977, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 6, 2006) ("Athlete's foot, another fungal infection for which there is a substantial risk at communal showers, is not a serious harm."); Rogers v. Allen Cnty. Jail, 2006 WL 1441092, *2 (N.D.Ind. May 25, 2006) (holding that "athlete's foot" does not "constitute a serious medical need"); Landfair v. Sheahan, 878 F.Supp. 1106, 1112 (N.D.Ill.1995) ( While no doubt uncomfortable, athlete's foot cannot be considered an injury serious enough to satisfy the objective component of [an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim]."); see also Perez v. Hardy, 2015 WL 5081355, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 27, 2015) (collecting cases); Hutcherson v. Moore, 2013 WL 5165740, at *4 (N.D. Ill, Sept. 13, 2013) (collecting cases). Therefore, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and will access a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Β§ 1915(g).
This is not a severe or extreme condition of confinement that posed an unreasonable risk of serious harm to Plaintiff's health and safety. See Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d. 1278, 1289 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that a prisoner must prove that the prison condition he complains of is sufficiently serious and "extreme" to violate the Eighth Amendment); see also, Snipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 1996) (a backed up shower drain that caused water to flow into the dayroom was not sufficiently serious to rise to the level of a constitutional violation); Landfair v.Sheahan, 878 F. Supp. 1106, 1112-13 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (shower plumbing deficiencies that caused plaintiff to contract athlete's foot did not rise to level of a constitutional violation); Venturi v. Boyd, 3:14-cv-00823-CLS-TMP, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158813 (N.D. Ala. Oct. 14, 2014) (mold in the shower area and withholding of cleaning supplies for thirty day duration did not rise to level of constitutional violation); Sanders v. Allen Cnty. Jail, No. 06-CV-302 (RL), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64232, 2006 WL 2578977, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 6, 2006) (holding that a dirty, moldy shower which resulted in plaintiff contracting Athlete's foot was not a serious medical condition). Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's alleged conditions do not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation.
Here, Hoffmann has alleged repeat sewage issues at the jail that led to punitive conditions of confinement, and that is enough to put forth a municipal practice or custom for purposes of initial review. See, e.g., Budd, 711 F.3d at 843 (claim alleging that sheriff "creat[ed] conditions at the jail and permit[ed] them to persist" stated a "municipal practice or custom"); Young v. Sheehan, No. 98 C 6527, 2000 WL 288516, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2000) (allegations of "punitive conditions existing at Cook County Jail and inadequate conditions of confinement" were "sufficient to support the inference of an official county jail policy, practice, or custom"); Landfair v. Sheahan, 878 F. Supp. 1106, 1111 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (permitting Β§ 1983 complaint to proceed because allegations in complaint could lead to an inference of a "custom or policy of providing inadequate supplies"). Accordingly, Count 2 may proceed against Sheriff Lakin.
However, construing Henderson's complaint liberally, his allegations are sufficient for preliminary review. See, e.g., Young v. Sheehan, No. 98 C 6527, 2000 WL 288516, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2000) (allegations of "punitive conditions existing at Cook County Jail and inadequate conditions of confinement" were "sufficient to support the inference of an official county jail policy, practice, or custom"); Landfair v. Sheahan, 878 F. Supp. 1106, 1111 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (permitting pro se Β§ 1983 complaint to proceed because allegations in complaint could lead to an inference of a "custom or policy of providing inadequate supplies and housing").
Part of insuring that a prisoner has minimally adequate clothing is that the clothes are cleaned or that the prisoner has an opportunity to clean the clothing himself. See Benjamin v. Fraser, 161 F. Supp. 2d 151, 178 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), aff'd in part, vacated in part on other grounds, 343 F.3d 35, 52 (2d Cir. 2003); see also Lanfair v. Sheahan, 878 F. Supp. 1106, 1112 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (holding that lack of clean clothing or means to launder clothing for an extended time could be unconstitutional). Although Carter claims that he could not have sent his clothing to the laundry since they were not properly tagged, it is undisputed that Carter had access to soap and could have washed his set of clothing himself. Myrick v. Anglin, 496 F. App'x 670, 675, 2012 WL 5870817, at *4 (7th Cir. Nov. 21, 2012) (finding prisoner failed to state Eight Amendment conditions of confinement claim where he did not claim that "he could not wash his clothes and bedding").
These conditions are not sufficiently serious to rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Id.; see also Landfair v. Sheahan, 878 F. Supp. 1106, 1112-13 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (deficiencies in shower plumbing that caused plaintiff to get athlete's foot did not rise to a constitutional violation). Furthermore, while in TierD4, Plaintiff used the sink and toilet in his cell. (Defs.' 56.1(a)(3) Statement ΒΆΒΆ 27-28.)
ash" is not an objectively serious medical condition); Rush v. Schrubbe, 2007 WL 2686843, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 11, 2007) ("athlete's foot itself does not generally amount to an objectively serious medical condition"); Russell v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth, 2007 WL 129000, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 12, 2007) (same); Sanders v. Allen Cnty. Jail, 2006 WL 2578977, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 6, 2006) ("Athlete's foot, another fungal infection for which there is a substantial risk at communal showers, is not a serious harm."); Rogers v. Allen Cnty. Jail, 2006 WL 1441092, *2 (N.D. Ind. May 25, 2006) (holding that "athlete's foot" does not "constitute a serious medical need"); Calhoun v. Thomas, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1264, 1287 (M.D. Ala. 2005) (holding that "athlete's foot" and "bleeding feet" do not satisfy the "first, objective inquiry"); Davis v. Lawson, 2005 WL 2293752, at *3 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 19, 2005) ("Athlete's foot is simply not a serious medical need within the meaning of [the Eighth Amendment]."); Landfair v. Sheahan, 878 F. Supp. 1106, 1112 (N.D. Ill.1995) ("While no doubt uncomfortable, athlete's foot cannot be considered an injury serious enough to satisfy the objective component of [an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim]."); see also Sledge v. Kooi, 564 F.3d 105, 107-08 (2d Cir. 2009) (holding that eczema is not objectively serious under the Eighth Amendment). While the Tenth Circuit has not specifically addressed whether a foot fungus satisfies the objective component of an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim, it has provided guidance as to what constitutes serious medical harm.