Israel Cobian v. Christopher McLaughlin, 16-3141

Background

In 2011–2012 Israel Cobian told prison officials (Lt. McLaughlin and Major Steele) he feared retaliation from three gang members he had testified against and asked them to verify/update records or transfer him for protection; he alleges they largely refused to act.
McLaughlin issued a disciplinary report after Cobian demanded proof of the meeting and threatened court action; an adjustment committee found Cobian guilty and sentenced him to three months in segregation.
The day after segregation began Cobian was placed in a cell smeared with a prior inmate’s feces on the bed, window/screen, and food port; he received limited cleaning supplies but could not fully sanitize the cell and remained there for about a month despite grievances.
At screening the district court allowed only a First Amendment retaliation claim to proceed against McLaughlin and Steele and dismissed failure-to-protect and conditions-of-confinement theories; later it granted summary judgment to defendants on the retaliation claim.
On appeal the Seventh Circuit held the screening court erred by not allowing a conditions-of-confinement (Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference) claim to proceed, reversed that dismissal and remanded for further proceedings; it affirmed summary judgment for defendants on the retaliation claim in all other respects.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Failure-to-protect (Eighth Amendment) at screening	Cobian says officials knew of risk from gang members and failed to take protective steps.	Defendants say Cobian alleged only speculative/generalized fear, not a specific, substantial risk.	No failure-to-protect claim: fear was speculative; pleading insufficient to show substantial, likely risk.
2. Conditions-of-confinement (Eighth Amendment) at screening	Cobian says placement and month-long exposure to feces state deliberate-indifference claim.	Defendants implied complaint did not assert such Eighth Amendment claim and screening should be limited.	Court: pleadings were sufficient to allow an Eighth Amendment conditions claim to proceed; screening exclusion was error.
3. Exhaustion of administrative remedies for feces-cell claim	Cobian says he filed a timely emergency grievance and warden returned it as non-emergency, satisfying exhaustion rules.	Defendants assert Cobian did not exhaust remedies.	Court: factual dispute for district court to decide on remand; Cobian’s testimony may show exhaustion of emergency grievance.
4. Retaliation (First Amendment) — summary judgment	Cobian contends his safety requests/protests were protected and motivated punishment (bogus report, segregation, filthy cell).	Defendants assert his threats/insubordinate conduct (threat to sue, confrontational language) were unprotected and the adjustment committee imposed segregation for an unprotected threat; no evidence defendants caused placement or acted from retaliatory motive.	Affirmed summary judgment for defendants: Cobian’s threats were unprotected; no triable causation showing his protected speech caused discipline or filthy-cell placement.

Key Cases Cited

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to protect inmates from prisoner-on-prisoner violence)
Gevas v. McLaughlin, 798 F.3d 475 (7th Cir.) (failure-to-protect standards)
Dale v. Poston, 548 F.3d 563 (7th Cir.) (subjective awareness and disregard standard)
Vinning-El v. Long, 482 F.3d 923 (7th Cir.) (deliberate indifference where inmate exposed to human waste)
McBride v. Deer, 240 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir.) (short-term exposure to human waste can state Eighth Amendment claim)
DeSpain v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965 (10th Cir.) (conditioning of confinement with unsanitary conditions violates Eighth Amendment)
Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541 (7th Cir.) (prison speech limitations and disciplinary interests)
Watkins v. Kasper, 599 F.3d 791 (7th Cir.) (retaliation elements)
Thornton v. Snyder, 428 F.3d 690 (7th Cir.) (Illinois emergency grievance exhaustion rules)
Pyles v. Nwaobasi, 829 F.3d 860 (7th Cir.) (assessing credibility of exhaustion testimony)
Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592 (7th Cir.) (§ 1983 personal involvement requirement)
Steidl v. Gramley, 151 F.3d 739 (7th Cir.) (limits on supervisory liability)
Greene v. Doruff, 660 F.3d 975 (7th Cir.) (no First Amendment violation if punishment would be imposed for legitimate rule violation regardless of motive)
Kervin v. Barnes, 787 F.3d 833 (7th Cir.) (insubordinate/backtalk to guards not protected speech)
Tibbs v. Admin. Office of the Ill. Courts, 860 F.3d 502 (7th Cir.) (timing alone insufficient to prove retaliatory intent)