Marcos Gray v. Marcus Hardy
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11575
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Gray, a pro se Illinois prisoner at Stateville for ~15 years, sued Warden Hardy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment violations from persistent infestations (cockroaches, mice, ants, birds) and inadequate cleaning supplies and sanitary access.
- Gray reports frequent sightings of pests, bird droppings throughout the facility, broken windows allowing reentry, one towel replaced every eight months, no access to mops/brooms or to store cleaning chemicals, and only intermittent extermination and bird removal efforts.
- Gray has asthma and claims worsened symptoms at Stateville (treatment/medication reflected in records) and skin rashes after arrival; he has not alleged pest bites but asserts physical and psychological harm.
- Gray filed an emergency grievance to the warden in 2011; the grievance and the warden-signed response acknowledging wildlife and monthly spraying create dispute over the sufficiency of remedial steps and notice to the warden.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the warden; the Seventh Circuit reviewed de novo, construing Gray’s pro se submissions liberally and crediting factual disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the combined conditions (infestations + lack of cleaning supplies) meet the Eighth Amendment objective seriousness requirement | Gray: the cumulative unsanitary conditions deprive him of rudimentary sanitation and meet the "minimal civilized measure of life's necessities" | Hardy: individual components (roaches, windows, limited supplies) are not severe enough alone to violate the Eighth Amendment | Court: The conditions taken together raise triable issues of objective seriousness; summary judgment denied on this ground |
| Whether Gray suffered cognizable physical or psychological harm caused by conditions | Gray: worsened asthma, skin rashes, and psychological distress from living in infested, dirty cell | Hardy: Gray conceded he cannot prove causation; attacks are infrequent so harm is not serious | Court: Gray alleged sufficient physical (asthma, rash) and psychological harms to create factual disputes for a jury; lack of expert affidavit did not preclude avoiding summary judgment |
| Whether the warden was deliberately indifferent (subjective knowledge and disregard of risk) | Gray: grievance and facility conditions put warden on notice; alleged personal responsibility for policy changes; prior remedial measures ineffective | Hardy: took reasonable steps (monthly exterminator, tri-monthly bird removal); lacked notice prior to his tenure or of severity | Court: Grievance and other facts permit a jury to infer that the warden knew or must have known and was deliberately indifferent; persistence of ineffective measures supports inference |
| Whether the case should be consolidated with a certified class action (Dobbey) | Gray: seeks coordination given overlapping claims; is a class member | Hardy: (not addressed substantively on consolidation) | Court: Leave coordination/consolidation to the district court on remand; case reversed and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (two-part Eighth Amendment test: objective seriousness and deliberate indifference)
- Gillis v. Litscher, 468 F.3d 488 (7th Cir. 2006) (conditions—heat, clothing, sanitation—as examples of Eighth Amendment violations)
- Lewis v. Lane, 816 F.2d 1165 (7th Cir. 1987) (state must provide reasonably adequate sanitation and hygienic materials)
- Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422 (7th Cir. 1996) (severe roach infestation can support Eighth Amendment violation)
- Sain v. Wood, 512 F.3d 886 (7th Cir. 2008) (less severe roach sightings with periodic extermination did not violate Eighth Amendment)
- Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 1997) (holistic view of conditions; duration matters)
- Hayes v. Snyder, 546 F.3d 516 (7th Cir. 2008) (standards for physical injury in prison-conditions claims)
- Thomas v. Illinois, 697 F.3d 612 (7th Cir. 2012) (psychological harms from filth and infestation can support Eighth Amendment claims)
- Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2001) (jury may infer deliberate indifference where officials "must have known" of risk)
- Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987 (7th Cir. 1996) (inmate communications to administrators may establish notice for § 1983 liability)