376 F. Supp. 3d 874
N.D. Ill.2019Background
- Plaintiffs Aaron Passmore and Jerry Griffin, pretrial detainees at Will County Adult Detention Facility (WCADF), alleged they received dirty/stained underwear that caused genital rashes and that staff denied medical care and underwear exchanges.
- Defendants: Will County, WCADF Warden (official capacity) and four county employees (individual capacities), including laundry assistant Kelly Bargo who supervised detainee "tenders."
- WCADF laundry: communal washing of all inmates' clothing with automatic soap/bleach lines; no visual bleach check; laundered items folded and randomly distributed twice weekly; tenders instructed to discard visibly soiled underwear.
- Passmore reported multiple episodes of stained underwear and recurrent genital rashes; he submitted some healthcare requests and grievances and spoke to a nurse but saw a doctor only for unrelated back pain.
- Griffin reported similar stained underwear and a brief genital rash, housing in the medical unit for an orbital fracture (medical visits and hospital referrals occurred), complaints about lights/noise/lack of outside access while in M-pod, and several strip-searches with female officers nearby.
- Court proceedings: Defendants moved for summary judgment; the court granted it in full, finding Plaintiffs failed to show sufficiently serious conditions or deliberate indifference, and no Monell basis for county liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether issuance of dirty/stained underwear and denial of exchanges violated detainees' Fourteenth Amendment rights (conditions of confinement) | Passmore/Griffin: communal laundry and denied exchanges exposed them to urine/feces and caused painful genital rashes amounting to unconstitutional conditions | Defendants: provision of laundered clothing twice weekly, available exchanges, ability to wash clothes, and laundry procedures (soap/bleach) show no constitutional deprivation | Court: No — underwear issue not "sufficiently serious" and Plaintiffs had opportunities to avoid wearing/care for the items; summary judgment for Defendants |
| Whether failure to provide medical care for rashes and other conditions constituted deliberate indifference | Plaintiffs: submitted healthcare slips, complained but were not treated for rashes (and Griffin re: eye treatment) | Defendants: limited treatment was provided (nursing contact, doctor visits for other issues, hospital referrals); no evidence of serious medical need or that staff knowingly disregarded a substantial risk | Court: No — rashes not shown to be objectively serious; no evidence of deliberate indifference or who withheld care; summary judgment for Defendants |
| Whether Will County is liable under Monell for policies/customs causing the alleged deprivations | Plaintiffs: county policy of communal laundry and practices caused constitutional violations | Defendants: no unconstitutional policy shown; isolated incidents and existing laundry rules (soap/bleach, disposal of soiled items) negate municipal liability | Court: No Monell liability — no proof of unconstitutional policy or pattern producing the harm |
| Whether other asserted conditions (M-pod lights/noise/limited outside access; strip-searches; orbital fracture treatment) violated constitutional rights | Griffin: lights on, slamming doors, lack of outside access, humiliating strip-searches, and inadequate fracture treatment caused constitutional harms | Defendants: temporary conditions, medical monitoring and hospital referrals, legitimate security reasons for searches; lack of proof of serious harm or deliberate indifference | Court: No — individually and in combination the conditions did not deprive minimal civilized measures; strip-searches had legitimate penological justification; summary judgment for Defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (establishes deliberate indifference standard for serious risk to inmate health or safety)
- Rice ex rel. Rice v. Corr. Med. Servs., 675 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2012) (pretrial detainees entitled to humane conditions; two-step serious-condition and deliberate-indifference inquiry)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard and evaluation of evidence/inferences)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires unconstitutional policy or custom)
- Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2011) (medical need objectively serious if diagnosed or obviously requiring treatment)
- Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991) (conditions-of-confinement claims consider cumulative effect of conditions)