Tapanga Hardeman v. David Wathen
933 F.3d 816
| 7th Cir. | 2019Background
- Pretrial detainees at Lake County Adult Correctional Facility allege officials shut off all running water for ~3 days in November 2017 without notice.
- Jail provided five bottled waters per detainee per day for personal use and one communal barrel per pod for sanitation; detainees were forbidden from flushing toilets at night and told to flush only for visible feces.
- Toilets frequently failed to clear, producing widespread unflushed feces and urine, foul odors, and insect infestations across a large population (≈740capacity).
- Detainees allege illnesses and harms (dehydration, headaches, dizziness, inability to take medication, sleep deprivation) and that requests for more water led to lockdowns as punishment.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Fourteenth Amendment (conditions-of-confinement for pretrial detainees); district court denied defendants’ qualified-immunity dismissal; Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rights to drinking water and basic sanitation were "clearly established" | Hardeman: detainees have clearly established right to minimal necessities, including water and sanitation | Wathen: short, planned, non-total three-day shutoff is novel; qualified immunity should apply | Held: Rights clearly established by precedent requiring "minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." |
| Whether Kingsley objective standard applies to pretrial detainees' conditions claims | Hardeman: Kingsley’s objective-unreasonableness standard should govern all Fourteenth Amendment conditions claims | Wathen: Kingsley applies only to excessive-force claims; subjective intent matters | Held: Kingsley objective inquiry applies to all Fourteenth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims by pretrial detainees. |
| Whether defendants’ conduct was objectively unreasonable given legitimate repair purpose | Hardeman: supplying limited water despite notice of shortages, punishing requests, and widespread unsanitary conditions were excessive relative to repair objective | Wathen: shutting water to fix a booster pump was a legitimate nonpunitive purpose; conditions not excessive | Held: On complaint facts, conditions were objectively unreasonable and excessive in relation to any legitimate purpose; qualified immunity not available at pleading stage. |
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts to overcome qualified immunity at Rule 12(b)(6) | Hardeman: complaint alleges sufficiently severe and prolonged deprivation to state a plausible claim | Wathen: qualified immunity appropriate if right not clearly articulated or facts show legitimate response | Held: Complaint pleads plausible, non-negligent deprivation of basic needs; denial of qualified immunity affirmed (factual development may affect future rulings). |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1979) (prisoners must be afforded the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) (objective-unreasonableness standard for pretrial-detainee excessive-force claims)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (conditions-of-confinement actionable only if objectively and sufficiently serious; deliberate indifference standard)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (pretrial detainee protections under Due Process and when conditions may be punitive)
- Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991) (conditions of confinement and interplay of objective/subjective standards)
- Reed v. Palmer, 906 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 2018) (pleading-stage qualified-immunity principles and accepting complaint allegations)
- Woods v. Thieret, 903 F.2d 1080 (7th Cir. 1990) (short-term deprivation of essentials can state Eighth Amendment claim)
- Johnson v. Pelker, 891 F.2d 136 (7th Cir. 1989) (three days without running water and smeared feces could violate Eighth Amendment)
- DeSpain v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965 (10th Cir. 2001) (exposure to human waste evokes serious health and dignity concerns under Eighth Amendment)
- Budd v. Motley, 711 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2013) (conditions-of-confinement cases often involve interrelated deprivations producing a single unmet human need)