Green v. Wall, 3:20-cv-01078

Plaintiff Cassidy Green, while incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, claims he was exposed to smoke due to a fire started by other inmates on October 6, 2019.
Green alleged that correctional officers, specifically Defendant Wall, delayed responding to the fire and ignored his requests for medical attention as he experienced breathing difficulties and other symptoms from the smoke and chemical extinguishing agents.
Defendants claim they responded to the fire promptly, conducted wellness checks alongside medical staff, and never heard any requests from Green for medical assistance.
The case proceeded on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against four correctional officers, after surviving threshold review and other preliminary motions.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding their knowledge of and response to Green’s complaints.
The court reviewed extensive procedural developments, including extensions for Green to respond due to health issues, and ultimately decided the summary judgment motion based on the evidence of record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Green had a serious medical need after smoke exposure and Defendants acted with deliberate indifference	Green claims he suffered significant symptoms (breathing difficulty, nausea, headache) and correctional officers ignored his specific verbal requests for medical care	Defendants assert they responded appropriately to the fire, medical staff were present, and none of the Defendants heard Plaintiff’s medical requests; if they had, they would have ensured treatment	For Defendants; no evidence they were aware of or ignored Green’s medical needs, at most showing negligence not deliberate indifference

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for determining genuine issue of material fact)
Hayes v. Snyder, 546 F.3d 516 (isolated acts of neglect do not constitute deliberate indifference)
Ruffin-Thompkins v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 422 F.3d 603 (burden-shifting on summary judgment)
Apex Digital, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 735 F.3d 962 (standard for view of facts on summary judgment)