Alatorre v. Holcomb
| Docket Number | 1:23-cv-00282-JPH-KMB |
| Decision Date | 01 May 2023 |
| Parties | SPIROS ALATORRE, EDWARD PARTLOW, Plaintiffs, v. ERIC J. HOLCOMB, ROBERT E. CARTER, JR., DAUSS, DENNIS REAGLE, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, CENTURION MEDICAL PROVIDER, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT, DISMISSING INSUFFICIENT CLAIMS, SEVERING CLAIMS, AND DIRECTING SERVICE OF PROCESS
Plaintiffs Spiros Alatorre and Edward Partlow initiated this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 15, 2023. Dkt. 4. The Plaintiffs are Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) inmates at Pendleton Correctional Facility. Plaintiffs allege that the water at Pendleton Correctional Facility where they are housed is contaminated and unsafe to use and drink. Plaintiffs claim that they were and continue to be exposed to and harmed by the contaminated water. Id. Plaintiffs bring claims under the Eighth Amendment and the federal Safe Drinking Water Act alleging that they were exposed to an environmental hazard, and additional claims under the First and Eighth Amendment alleging that they were denied medical care and retaliated against for complaining about the contaminated water. Id.
Because Plaintiffs are "prisoners" as defined by 28 U.S.C § 1915A(c), this Court has an obligation under 28 U.S.C § 1915A(a) to screen their complaint. For the reasons explained below, certain claims proceed, certain claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and other claims shall be severed as improperly joined.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. In determining whether the complaint states a claim, the Court applies the same standard as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017).
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Pro se complaints such as that filed by the Plaintiffs are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation omitted).
Plaintiffs bring their claims against four individuals in both their official and individual capacities-Indiana Governor, Eric Holcomb; IDOC Commissioner, Robert E. Carter, Jr.; Dr. Dauss, IDOC Medical Director; and Pendleton Warden Dennis Reagle,[1]dkt. 4 at 1-and against the IDOC and Centurion, the private-contractor medical provider for the IDOC. Id.
Plaintiffs allege that beginning in 2021, they have been exposed to water "that has legionella bacteria and other possible bacteria and chemical contaminates" in it. Id. at 5. Plaintiffs claim the contamination is from old lead piping. Id. They allege that they have suffered injuries from drinking the water and using it to shower. Id. at 5-6. Specifically, Plaintiffs have experienced coughing, headaches, abdominal pain, muscle aches, shortness of breath, nausea, cold chills, fever and diarrhea, digestive complications, cardiovascular problems, and potential kidney problems. Id. Plaintiffs state that they have not been provided adequate treatment for these conditions. Id.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at 2, 15-16. Related to injunctive relief, Plaintiffs request that the defendants replace the old lead piping at Pendleton, that they be seen by a medical provider outside the facility, that the facility hire more staff or activate the National Guard to handle medical care and/or transportation to medical facilities, and that the facility install intercoms in cell houses so inmates can communicate their needs for immediate medical services. Id.
Plaintiffs' claims fall into two categories: the "core" claims based on the unsafe condition of the water, and claims based on the denial of medical care.
Plaintiffs allege that they were exposed to contaminated water and became sick as a result. Plaintiffs' first claim is that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to the conditions at Pendleton because they were aware of reports of contaminated water but did not remedy the problem. Plaintiffs allege that the failure to "change the lead piping at Pendleton" also constitutes negligence under Indiana law. Id. at 13. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that the defendants' actions violate the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C § 300f et seq (1974). Id. at 8, 1415.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to their medical needs and that they are responsible for short-staffing issues at the facility which has contributed to the lack of sufficient medical treatment. Id. at 9-10. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that they were denied medical care in response to an array of symptoms including coughing, headaches, abdominal pain, muscle aches, shortness of breath, nausea, cold chills, fever and diarrhea, digestive complications, cardiovascular problems, and potential kidney problems. Id. Plaintiffs allege that the denial of medical care also constituted negligence under Indiana law. Id. at 13.
Relatedly, Plaintiffs claim that the defendants retaliated against them when they continued to deny them medical care, despite their numerous symptoms, and treated them as nuisances because they continued to seek medical care. Id. at 12.
The crux of Plaintiffs' claims relates to water safety at Pendleton. Claims for injunctive relief related to water safety, that is, to fix the problem and provide safe water, will proceed in this action.
All other claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or because they are improperly joined.
Under the Eighth Amendment, the government must "provide humane conditions of confinement; prison officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and must 'take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of inmates.'" Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (quoting Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526-27 (1984)). Inmates are entitled to "minimal civilized measures of life's necessities." Id. at 834. "Exposure to a significant risk of severe injury" can violate the Eighth Amendment. See Myers v. Ind. Dep't. of Corr., 655 Fed.Appx. 500, 504 (7th Cir. 2016). "Unacceptable conditions include those that pose a substantial risk to inmate health or safety." Estate of Simpson v. Gorbett, 863 F.3d 740, 745 (7th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted). "Just as correctional officers cannot deprive inmates of nutritional food, they cannot deprive inmates of drinkable water." Smith v. Dart, 803 F.3d 304, 313 (7th Cir. 2015).
Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement and state law negligence claims related to the failure to remedy the contaminated water issue shall proceed against IDOC Commissioner Carter and Warden Reagle only.
"Liability under § 1983 is direct rather than vicarious; supervisors are responsible for their own acts but not for those of subordinates, or for failing to ensure that subordinates carry out their tasks correctly." Horshaw v. Casper, 910 F.3d 1027, 1029 (7th Cir. 2018). Here, Plaintiffs do not allege sufficient facts to conclude that Governor Holcomb, Dr. Dauss, or Centurion were responsible for replacing the water pipes at Pendleton or otherwise providing clean water at the facility. Moreover, the positions of those defendants do not suggest that they are responsible for Plaintiffs' conditions of confinement.
Conversely, Plaintiffs allege that the IDOC Commissioner and the Warden were personally aware of the contaminated water, and they received additional reports from outside private contractors and the news media. Dkt. 4 at 7. Plaintiffs also allege that part of the IDOC Commissioner and the Warden's roles are to ensure that inmates' basic needs, in this case access to safe drinking water, are being met at the facility. Id. at 3-4.
The Court further discerns that it is plausible given their positions/titles that the IDOC Commissioner and the Warden had personal operational responsibilities for providing safe water at Pendleton. See, e.g., Haywood v. Hathaway, 842 F.3d 1026, 1032-33 (7th Cir. 2016) (); Gray v. Hardy, 826 F.3d 1000, 1008 (7th Cir. 2016) ().
Accordingly, the Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims against Governor Holcomb, Dr. Dauss, and Centurion are dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial