Urban v. Mohr, 1:19-cv-00914

Plaintiff Charles Urban, a pretrial detainee at the Grafton Reintegration Center (ODRC), alleged recurrent strong gas/possible carbon monoxide odors in his housing unit from May–August 2017 and reported symptoms (chest pain, shortness of breath, headaches, nausea, drowsiness).
He notified correctional officers, maintenance, and administrative staff; maintenance and outside contractors inspected gas regulators and the institution hired a contractor; some staff suspected sewer odor.
On July 27 and August 31, 2017, medical staff provided limited responses (fresh air, instruction to submit sick-call slips); plaintiff later saw medical staff in September and received testing he disputes.
Plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference to conditions and medical needs, and asserted state-law claims; he sought large compensatory and punitive damages.
The district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), dismissed all federal claims for failure to state a claim, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims (dismissed without prejudice).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Deliberate indifference to housing conditions (gas/ventilation)	Exposure to gas/CO odors over months created a substantial risk; defendants failed to fix it	Staff investigated, checked regulators, and hired contractor; at worst negligent	Dismissed — plaintiff failed to plead defendants knew of and drew inference of a substantial risk; conditions not shown "extreme"
2. Deliberate indifference to medical needs (July 27 & Aug 31)	Medical staff ignored/failed to timely treat symptoms from exposure	Medical staff evaluated, provided fresh air or sick-call procedures; disagreement over treatment is negligence	Dismissed — allegations show at most disagreement/neglect, not subjective deliberate indifference
3. Sufficiency of pleading against multiple/unspecified defendants	Complaint names many defendants and refers generally to "medical staff"/"defendants"	Generic, non-specific allegations insufficient to hold individual defendants liable	Dismissed — generic claims against unspecified defendants fail to state §1983 claims
4. State-law claims (torts) and supplemental jurisdiction	Asserts negligence and related state-law claims	Federal claims dismissed; no independent federal jurisdictional basis	Court declined supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367; state claims dismissed without prejudice

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard governs dismissal)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state plausible claim; courts need not accept legal conclusions)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference requires subjective awareness of substantial risk)
Graham v. Cty. of Washtenaw, 358 F.3d 377 (6th Cir. 2004) (Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference standard analogous to Eighth for pretrial detainees)
Flanory v. Bonn, 604 F.3d 249 (6th Cir. 2010) (discusses Farmer subjective/ objective components)
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (Eighth Amendment does not guarantee preferred treatment; severity requirement)
Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857 (6th Cir. 1976) (distinguishes denial of care from dispute over adequacy of care)
Napier v. Madison Cty., Ky., 238 F.3d 739 (6th Cir. 2001) (delay in treatment must have a detrimental effect to be actionable)