Schwab v. Scott, 3:13-cv-03184

Plaintiff Danny Schwab, proceeding pro se, was detained at Rushville Treatment and Detention Center.
A boil order began 12:01 a.m. on 4/25/13; staff informed residents about boiling water for consumption.
Dietary staff provided about three gallons of boiled water per unit during the boil order.
Schwab could boil unlimited water from room sinks or microwaves but found boiled water unpalatable.
Schwab allegedly suffered dehydration and dizziness during the five-day boil order.
The boil order was lifted on 4/30/13; officials advised water could be used immediately after boiling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the water deprivation during the boil order objectively serious under the Eighth Amendment?	Schwab suffered dehydration and discomfort over five days.	Deprivation was temporary and water was safe after boiling.	No, not objectively serious enough for constitutional violation.
Did Scott show deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm?	Scott knew of risk and disregarded it.	Scott informed staff, provided boiled water, allowed unlimited boiling; no known risk.	No evidence of deliberate indifference.
Was the boiled water unsafe to drink, supporting Eighth Amendment violation?	Boiled water tasted bad and contained sediment.	Boiling rendered water safe to drink despite taste/sediment.	No evidence that water was unsafe; no violation.

Sain v. Wood, 512 F.3d 886 (7th Cir. 2008) (humane conditions include safe drinking water)
Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2001) (deliberate indifference requires knowledge of substantial risk)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (official liability requires awareness of excessive risk to health or safety)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard in viewing evidence)