Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION LARS E. GUSTAFSON, SR., Plaintiff, v. CAUSE NO. 3:25-CV-300-PPS-JEM MIAMI CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER
Lars E. Gustafson, Sr., a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint. [ECF 1.] “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, I must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Gustafson alleges that, on April 2, 2025, he was told to pack up his belongings. Later that day, he was moved to another cell and a padlock was placed on his cell door. Gustafson complains that there is not an emergency call button or a ventilation system that provides fresh air. Additionally, guards ignore requests from inmates. They are told to use the grievance process, which Gustafson claims would be futile.
*2 The Eighth Amendment prohibits conditions of confinement that deny inmates “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Townsend v. Fuchs , 522 F.3d 765, 773 (7th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). In evaluating an Eighth Amendment claim, courts conduct both an objective and a subjective inquiry. Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). The objective prong asks whether the alleged deprivation is “sufficiently serious” that the action or inaction of a prison official leads to “the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Id . (citations omitted). Although “the Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons,” Rhodes v. Chapman , 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981), inmates are entitled to adequate food, clothing, shelter, bedding, hygiene materials, and sanitation. Knight v. Wiseman , 590 F.3d 458, 463 (7th Cir. 2009); Gillis v. Litscher , 468 F.3d 488, 493 (7th Cir. 2006). On the subjective prong, the prisoner must show the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to the inmate’s health or safety. Farmer , 511 U.S. at 834. As the Seventh Circuit has explained:
[C]onduct is deliberately indifferent when the official has acted in an intentional or criminally reckless manner, i.e. , the defendant must have known that the plaintiff was at serious risk of being harmed and decided not to do anything to prevent that harm from occurring even though he could have easily done so.
Board v. Farnham , 394 F.3d 469, 478 (7th Cir. 2005) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Reed v. McBride , 178 F.3d 849, 855 (7th Cir. 1999) (where inmate complained about severe deprivations but was ignored, he established a “prototypical case of deliberate indifference.”).
The Constitution does not mandate that a call button be provided. It also doesn’t mandate that each cell has access to a source of fresh air, so long as the air quality is *3 otherwise adequate. Here, Gustafson includes no facts from which it can be inferred that anyone was deliberately indifferent to his safety. Furthermore, it is unclear how Gustafson has been injured by these conditions. A physical injury is required for Gustafson to proceed. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(e) (“No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury[.]”).
Finally, Gustafson has sued only one defendant: the Miami Correctional Facility. It is a building, not a “person” or policy-making body that can be sued for constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Smith v. Knox County Jail , 666 F.3d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir. 2012).
This complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted. If Gustafson believes he can state a claim based on (and consistent with) the events described in this complaint, he may file an amended complaint because “[t]he usual standard in civil cases is to allow defective pleadings to be corrected, especially in early stages, at least where amendment would not be futile.” Abu-Shawish v. United States , 898 F.3d 726, 738 (7th Cir. 2018). To file an amended complaint, he needs to write this cause number on a Pro Se 14 (INND Rev. 2/20) Prisoner Complaint form which is available from his law library. He needs to write the word “Amended” on the first page above the title “Prisoner Complaint” and send it to the court after he properly completes the form.
For these reasons, the court: *4 (1) GRANTS Lars E. Gustafson, Sr. until May 16, 2025 , to file an amended
complaint; and (2) CAUTIONS Lars E. Gustafson, Sr. if he does not respond by the deadline, this case will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A without further notice because the current complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted.
SO ORDERED on April 14, 2025. /s/ Philip P. Simon JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT