Trais Fernandez Haire v. Randall Hepp

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted August 18, 2026*
Decided August 20, 2026
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Chief Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1023
TRAIS FERNANDEZ HAIRE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RANDALL HEPP,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 23-C-1073
William C. Griesbach,
Judge.
O R D E R
Trais Fernandez Haire, a Wisconsin prisoner, sued the warden at his correctional
institution alleging that the prison’s failure to provide clean drinking water violated his
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 25-1023 Page 2
Eighth Amendment rights. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court granted the
defendant’s motion for summary judgment, relying on undisputed evidence showing
that prison’s water was safe for consumption at all relevant times. We affirm.
We construe the facts in the light most favorable to Haire, the party opposing
summary judgment. Balle v. Kennedy, 73 F.4th 545, 553 (7th Cir. 2023). Haire is an inmate
at Waupun Correctional Institution (“Waupun”) in Waupun, Wisconsin, where Randall
Hepp was warden from 2020 to 2024. Waupun routinely tests its water systems, in a
process that is regulated by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”).
In May 2020, Hepp was notified that a January 2020 test of one of the prison’s water
wells showed radium amounts exceeding the maximum contaminant level allowed by
state regulations.
Haire asserts that this condition lasted until 2023 and that the pollutants included
not just radium, but also lead, bacteria, and rust. Haire contends that the condition of
the water caused him persistent abdominal pain since he arrived at Waupun in 2021.
Haire alleges that he complained “over and over” but received no medical care for his
stomach troubles, and that Hepp never resolved the contamination of Waupun’s
drinking water. Haire worries he might develop cancer from the contaminated water,
and that prison officials have ignored the elevated health risk.
Hepp, on the other hand, attested that the DNR placed Waupun under a consent
order, requiring the prison to notify the prisoners of the elevated radium levels, take
corrective action to reduce radium levels, and return to compliance by the end of 2024.
Notably, the DNR did not advise Hepp to change Waupun’s water source and, instead,
informed him there are no immediate effects from naturally occurring radium in the
drinking water. Hepp did not manage the water quality situation himself but directed
other prison officials to address the issue and keep him apprised of their progress.
Haire sued Hepp and other prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that
the failure to rectify the contamination of the prison’s drinking water violated his rights
under the Eighth Amendment. The district court screened his complaint, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b), allowing him to proceed only with his claim against Hepp. Hepp then
moved for summary judgment, arguing that Waupun’s drinking water was safe for
consumption at all relevant times and that he had appropriately responded to the
contamination in the water. The district court granted Hepp’s motion, concluding that
the water was safe for consumption at all relevant times and that because Hepp had

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 25-1023 Page 3
complied with DNR’s guidance, Haire could not establish that Hepp was deliberately
indifferent to the contamination.
Prisons must “provide humane conditions of confinement,” Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994), but that does not mean that prisons must provide a maximally
safe environment free from any minor contaminants, Carroll v. DeTella, 255 F.3d 470,
472–73 (7th Cir. 2001). To survive summary judgment, Haire needed to go beyond
allegations and present enough evidence that a reasonable jury could find that Hepp
was deliberately indifferent to an excessive risk to his health or safety. Balle, 73 F.4th
at 552.
He failed to do so. Haire’s bare allegations that Hepp did nothing to combat the
water contamination cannot overcome the evidence showing that Waupun officials
appropriately responded to the DNR’s consent order. Because Hepp took these
“reasonable measures to abate” the known risk, no reasonable jury could find that
Hepp was deliberately indifferent. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847. Although Haire contends
that Hepp should have changed Waupun’s water source, it is undisputed that Hepp
followed the DNR’s guidance. That is sufficient to defeat Haire’s claim of deliberate
indifference with respect to the contaminants. See Carroll, 255 F.3d at 473 (“If the
environmental authorities think there’s no reason to do anything about a contaminant
… prison officials cannot be faulted for not thinking it necessary for them to do
anything either.”)
We have reviewed Haire’s remaining arguments, and none has merit.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --