Womble v. Harvanek, 17-7023

Womble, proceeding pro se, sues Warden Harvanek under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to unconstitutional conditions at MACC.
He alleges the ice machine and water fountain in his housing unit were broken in August 2015 and not replaced.
He asserts extreme heat—temperatures above 90 degrees in June 2016—caused dehydration on multiple days.
He claims his cell water was brown, contaminated, and often made him sick, and that he was told to drink from his cell sink.
He alleges Harvanek, who ran MACC operations, denied requests for cold, uncontaminated drinking water and knew the conditions were harming him.
The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and assessed a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); the Tenth Circuit reverses and remands.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Womble allege a sufficiently serious deprivation under the Eighth Amendment?	Womble contends the contaminated water, heat, and broken facilities constitute a serious deprivation.	Harvanek argues the alleged deprivations were not sufficiently serious	Yes; the deprivation plausibly meets the seriousness standard.
Was Harvanek personally involved to support § 1983 liability?	Harvanek directly denied requests and controlled MACC operations.	Alleged denial of grievances alone is insufficient for personal participation.	Harvanek personally participated; denial of grievances alone does not foreclose liability where involved in the violation.
Did the district court err in applying the PLRA strike against Womble?	The court should allow the claim to proceed given plausibility of relief.	Strike was proper under § 1915(g) for frivolous or nonmeritorious claims.	Remand for further proceedings; strike assessment vacated.

Dias v. City & County of Denver, 567 F.3d 1169 (10th Cir. 2009) (de novo review standard for 12(b)(6) dismissals; liberal pleading standards)
Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1981) (conditions must deprive inmates of basic human needs to violate Eighth Amendment)
Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1991) (minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities standard)
DeSpain v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965 (10th Cir. 2001) (deliberate indifference requires knowledge of substantial risk and failure to act)
Hunt v. Uphoff, 199 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 1999) (definition of deliberate indifference in conditions cases)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard; not merely conclusory statements)
Stewart v. Beach, 701 F.3d 1322 (10th Cir. 2012) (denial of grievance cannot establish personal participation)