Donyall White v. Wendy Knight
710 F. App'x 260
7th Cir.2018Background
- Donyall White, an Indiana inmate, sued prison superintendent Wendy Knight and the Correctional Industrial Facility under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment violations during temporary lockdowns that limited toilet access to once every two hours.
- White alleged cells lacked individual toilets and that during lockdowns prisoners were permitted to use a toilet only at a scheduled time within each two-hour block; he described incidents of defecating on the cell floor and in a bag and claimed resulting PTSD.
- The district court screened and initially dismissed the complaint without prejudice, identifying three defects: lack of personal involvement alleged against Knight, that the facility is not a § 1983 ‘‘person,’’ and that the policy did not state an Eighth Amendment claim.
- White amended to allege Knight personally formulated the once-per-two-hours bathroom policy and reiterated that prisoners could not request bathroom access on demand; the district court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice as ‘‘nearly identical.’’
- The Seventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed, holding the temporary, scheduled restriction did not meet the Rhodes/Farmer standard for cruel and unusual punishment and reiterating that a prison facility is not a suable person under § 1983.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether limiting toilet access to once every two hours during lockdowns violates the Eighth Amendment | White: the restriction deprives inmates of sanitation and is cruel and unusual, causing injury and PTSD | Defendants: temporary, scheduled limits during lockdowns are not the kind of deprivation that violates the Eighth Amendment | Held: No Eighth Amendment violation; temporary once-per-two-hours policy not constitutionally deficient under Rhodes/Farmer |
| Whether Knight was properly alleged to have personal involvement | White: amended complaint alleges Knight formulated the bathroom policy | Defendants: (as evaluated) original pleadings lacked personal involvement; amendment was ‘‘nearly identical’’ | Held: Dismissal of amended complaint was appropriate—court found no viable Eighth Amendment claim even considering allegations against Knight |
| Whether the Correctional Industrial Facility is a proper § 1983 defendant | White: named the facility as defendant (argued as part of a corporation) | Defendants: a building/facility is not a ‘‘person’’ under § 1983 | Held: Facility is not a person under § 1983 and cannot be sued |
| Whether allegations of an individualized medical need known to defendants would change the analysis | White: referenced medication affecting bathroom needs in grievance (not pleaded as a claim) | Defendants: no allegations that Knight knew of any medical condition or need | Held: Court did not decide fully but noted Farmer could require different analysis where defendants know of an inmate’s specific medical need; not raised here |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (Eighth Amendment requires denial of basic human needs to be cruel and unusual)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment requires deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm)
- Kirby v. Blackledge, 530 F.2d 583 (4th Cir.) (long-term lack of modern toilet facilities may violate Eighth Amendment)
- Howard v. Wheaton, 668 F. Supp. 1140 (N.D. Ill.) (denial of functioning toilet for extended period implicated Eighth Amendment)
- Strachan v. Ashe, 548 F. Supp. 1193 (D. Mass.) (no modern toilet access for two weeks—use of bucket raised constitutional concerns)
- Dellis v. Correctional Corp. of America, 257 F.3d 508 (6th Cir.) (temporary deprivation of toilet access did not violate the Constitution)
- Harris v. Fleming, 839 F.2d 1232 (7th Cir.) (temporary neglect of hygienic needs did not violate Eighth Amendment)
- Hughes v. Joliet Corr. Ctr., 931 F.2d 425 (7th Cir.) (discussing institutional defendants and § 1983 liability)
- Guidry v. Jefferson County Detention Center, 868 F. Supp. 189 (E.D. Tex.) (facility is not a person under § 1983)
- Powell v. Cook County Jail, 814 F. Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill.) (building or jail facility is not a suable § 1983 person)