Hall v. Nicholson

584 F.Supp.3d 589

Timothy HALL (K-57675), Plaintiff,

v.Warden NICHOLSON, Defendants.

Case No. 20 C 1719

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois.

Signed February 10, 2022

Dina Marie Hayes, Jeffrey Messina, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

Timothy Hall, Pinckneyville, IL, Pro Se.

Kristin K. Lindemann, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Illinois, Chicago, IL, for Defendant Warden Nicholson.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Elaine E. Bucklo, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Timothy Hall ("Plaintiff"), an Illinois prisoner, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning the conditions under which he was imprisoned at Stateville Correctional Center. By order dated May 1, 2020, the Court allowed Plaintiff's amended complaint to proceed against Stateville Warden Nicholson ("Defendant") because the amended complaint alleged potentially systemic problems at the prison. Before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant's motion is denied.

I. Background

A. Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 56.1

Local Rule 56.1 governs the procedures for filing and responding to motions for summary judgment in this Court. Rule 56.1 requires the party moving for summary judgment to provide a statement of material facts and a supporting memorandum of law. LR 56.1(a)(1), (2) (N.D. Ill.) (amd. Feb. 18, 2021). The statement of material facts "must consist of concise numbered paragraphs[,]" and "[e]ach asserted fact must be supported by citation to the specific evidentiary material, including the specific page number, that supports it." LR 56.1(d)(1), (2). When addressing facts in its memorandum of law, the moving party "must cite directly to specific paragraphs in the LR 56.1 statements or responses." LR 56.1(g).

The party opposing summary judgment must submit a supporting memorandum of law and a response to the moving party's statement of facts. LR 56.1(b)(1), (2). A fact may be admitted, disputed, or admitted in part and disputed in part. LR 56.1(e)(2). To dispute an asserted fact, the opposing party "must cite specific evidentiary material that controverts the fact" and explain "how the cited material controverts the asserted fact." LR 56.1(e)(3). "[M]ere disagreement with the movant's asserted facts is inadequate[.]" Smith v. Lamz , 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003). "Asserted facts may be deemed admitted if not controverted with specific citations to evidentiary material." LR 56.1(e)(3).

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 61, a memorandum in support, Dkt. 63 ("DMEM"), and a statement of facts, Dkt. 62 ("DSOF"). Each asserted material fact is supported by citations to evidentiary material. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se , Defendant also served on Plaintiff a Local Rule 56.2 Notice that explained the requirements of Local Rule 56.1. Dkt. 64. Plaintiff filed a response that consists of both a recitation of facts and legal arguments, Dkt. 67 ("PRESP").

Plaintiff did not directly respond to Defendant's statement of facts, so as permitted by Local Rule 56.1(e)(3), the Court will consider facts therein admitted if they are not "controverted with specific citations to evidentiary material." Notwithstanding any admissions, however, the Court has interpreted Plaintiff's responsive filing generously, consistent with his pro se status, and will consider his recitation of facts to the extent that he has either pointed to evidence in the record or could properly testify himself about the matters asserted. See James v. Hale , 959 F.3d 307, 315 (7th Cir. 2020) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4) ); Sistrunk v. Khan , 931 F. Supp. 2d 849, 854 (N.D. Ill. 2013) ; Fed. R. Evid. 602. Moreover, application of Local Rule 56.1 here aside, Defendant relies entirely upon Plaintiff's own deposition testimony and grievances as evidence of the prison's conditions – Defendant has submitted no additional evidence on that issue – and thus the factual record as to prison conditions consists of Plaintiff's own account and is undisputed in any event. See Bentz v. Hardy , No. 15-1344, 638 Fed. App'x 535, 536 (7th Cir. Apr. 8, 2016) (finding that, even where plaintiff failed to respond properly to statement of uncontested facts, "[t]hat misstep was not fatal" because defendants chiefly relied upon plaintiff's discovery deposition as their evidentiary source, rendering his account of prison conditions undisputed).

With these standards in mind, the Court turns to the relevant facts and will incorporate references to the parties’ exhibits so long as they would be admissible at trial and provide information relevant to the Court's analysis.

B. Facts

This lawsuit concerns Plaintiff's incarceration at Stateville from 2014 – 2018 (he was then transferred to Pinckneyville Correctional Center, where he is presently incarcerated). During that time, Plaintiff states that he was housed in D-House, C-House, and F-House – and he has identified specific cells where he resided in each, see PRESP at p. 2, 11 – whereas Defendant asserts that Plaintiff resided only in D-House during this time, based upon a "Counseling Summary" log for Plaintiff that Defendant produced, see DSOF ¶ 9.

Plaintiff held numerous prison jobs at Stateville. He worked on the paint crew between 2015 and 2017, worked as cell-house help, which consisted of cleaning living units, and he did two rotations of six-month stints each in the toxic room, where he cleaned tunnels, the dining room, and visiting room, and then in the laundry room, where he washed clothes for the facility, including jumpsuits from the healthcare unit. Id. ¶¶ 10-15.

All three cell houses where Plaintiff lived were "plagued" by cockroaches, rats, rodent droppings, mold, foul odors, asbestos, fecal matter on the walls, and poor ventilation. PRESP at 2. The conditions in F-House were "so grim" that it closed in 2016. Id. Plaintiff "suffered there" until just before it closed. Id. While Plaintiff slept, roaches and rodents crawled on him, causing him to awaken. Id. His food trays were wiped down with dirty towels instead of washed in a dish washer. Id. The dining tables were covered in bird feces. Id. While he showered, he inhaled mold. Id. When he worked in the toxic room, he was exposed to toxic chemicals for six to seven hours a day. Id. When he worked in the general store, he worked within muddy walls and among mice that were in the prison's food supply. Id.

Plaintiff's medical records from during 2014-2018 reflect multiple complaints by Plaintiff of itching on his back, scratchy throat, chronic congestion, nasal pain, and facial pressure. Id. , pg. 3. The medical records also reflect observation of puss-filled vesicles on Plaintiff's back and fungus on his body. Id. Administrative staff "simply reminded [Plaintiff] of the status quo and instructed him to put in sick call to address his ailments". Id.

Plaintiff filed two grievances, each both related to sanitation and his resulting medical issues, during his time at Stateville – one in October 2014 and one in June 2018. DSOF ¶¶ 21-38. The 2014 grievance identified problems with ants, roaches, spiders, mice, and bird droppings throughout the prison. Id. ¶ 22. Plaintiff also complained that he was having respiratory problems, sleepless nights, headaches, congestion, mucus build-up, and a raspy voice. Id. ¶ 23. In the 2018 grievance, Plaintiff complained about mold, asbestos, birds, bird feces, roaches, and a lack of a dishwasher. Id. ¶ 32. He further complained about respiratory problems, blurred vision, chronic itching, a raspy voice, and mucus build-up. Id. ¶ 34. Plaintiff noted in both grievances that he was receiving medical attention, but that it was not helping. Id. ¶¶ 25, 35. In the latter grievance he requested treatment from a specialist regarding the rash on his back. Id. ¶ 37. Neither grievance identified nor was directed towards any particular staff members. Id. ¶¶ 29, 38. Plaintiff also wrote three additional letters regarding his complaints. PRESP at 2.

In response to Plaintiff's first grievance, the counselor wrote, "glue traps are provided for mice", and the prison makes every effort to keep wildlife out, but "when wildlife enters the living units staff notifies the appropriate department". Id. at 3. There are no documented efforts in the record to move Plaintiff to a more sanitary environment. Id. The medical records reflect some treatment of Plaintiff's symptoms, but no attempts to address their causes or reduce the risk of future harm. Id.

Plaintiff also had verbal conversations with prison staff about the unsanitary conditions, but those conversations were not with Defendant. Id. , pg. 2; DSOF ¶ 19. Plaintiff only ever exchanged "passing greetings" with Defendant. Id.

Defendant was "not the Warden at Stateville for the entire period relevant to Plaintiff's allegations", but he was the Warden when Plaintiff was transferred to Pinckneyville in 2018. Id. ¶¶ 17-18. Plaintiff notes that Defendant was a warden at Stateville at the time that F-House was closed, which occurred in 2016. PRESP at 5.

At the time of Plaintiff's deposition in February 2021, Plaintiff's breathing had improved, but he was still congested, having trouble swallowing, and he still had the rash on his back. DSOF ¶ 40.

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in March 2020. In May 2020, the Court allowed Plaintiff to proceed on his amended complaint, explaining that his allegations of four-years long constant exposure to pests, feces, and mold in his cells, remainder of his living units, the dining hall, and the prison's kitchen areas, which caused him to suffer respiratory and skin conditions that have not abated, potentially indicated unsanitary conditions of constitutional significance and warranted further inquiry. Dkt. 10. The Court explained that Plaintiff could proceed against Defendant in his individual capacity because the personal involvement of a senior prison official like a warden can be inferred...