Michael D. Hickingbottom v. Christopher Holcomb

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 2, 2026*
Decided February 5, 2026
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Chief Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1344
MICHAEL D. HICKINGBOTTOM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLCOMB, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Terre Haute Division.
No. 2:22-cv-00038-JRS-MKK
James R. Sweeney, II,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Michael Hickingbottom, an Indiana prisoner, sued prison officials for failing to
address heating, plumbing, and black mold issues in violation of his rights under the
Eighth Amendment. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court entered partial summary
judgment for the defendants on the claims involving black mold and plumbing. But the
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 6 --

No. 25-1344 Page 2
court concluded that Hickingbottom had presented evidence from which a reasonable
jury could conclude that one of the defendants, Lieutenant Christopher Holcomb, acted
with deliberate indifference to the lack of heat in Hickingbottom’s cell. A jury found in
Holcomb’s favor. Hickingbottom appeals only the district court’s entry of summary
judgment on his claim that prison officials failed to address ongoing black mold issues
in his cells and one aspect of his jury trial. We affirm.
I.
We begin with Hickingbottom’s claim that prison officials were deliberately
indifferent to persistent black mold growth in his cells. On this claim, we construe the
facts and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of Hickingbottom, the nonmovant.
Balle v. Kennedy, 73 F.4th 545, 553 (7th Cir. 2023).
In July 2018, after Hickingbottom was assigned to the special control unit at
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility in Carlisle, Indiana, he began experiencing
headaches, nosebleeds, breathing problems, and profusive sweating. He suspected that
black mold was causing his symptoms after he overheard inmates and maintenance
staff talk about black mold in the ventilation and plumbing systems.
In November 2021, Hickingbottom submitted a healthcare services request,
complaining that he was having breathing problems caused by black mold and asked
officials to clean his cell. One month later, he filed a grievance about the black mold.
Thomas Wellington—a grievance specialist—replied, telling Hickingbottom to request
cleaning supplies from Holcomb. Hickingbottom was provided with disinfectant.
In January 2022, Hickingbottom submitted a second grievance about the black
mold and received a response from Wellington informing him that no black mold had
been found during inspections and that Hickingbottom should request cleaning
supplies. That same month, Hickingbottom sent letters to Jay Hendrix, the safety
hazard manager, and Warden Frank Vanihel, requesting that staff power wash his cell
because the black mold was making him sick. Hendrix responded that Hickingbottom
needed to clean his cell with the provided cleaning supplies. Vanihel responded that no
black mold had been found and that he should request more cleaning supplies.
Later that same month, Wellington and Tawni Templeton, another grievance
specialist responded to Hickingbottom and other prisoners’ continued complaints of
black mold by asking guards and maintenance staff to inspect the cells and provide

-- 2 of 6 --

No. 25-1344 Page 3
prisoners with cleaning supplies. Holcomb was one of the guards who inspected
Hickingbottom’s cell, but he found no black mold. Sergeant Richard Yarber also
inspected Hickingbottom’s cell and unit, and relayed the prisoners’ complaints to
Hendrix. After Hickingbottom told Sergeant Everado Angeles-Mora about the black
mold, Angeles-Mora also contacted Hendrix. In response, Hendrix inspected
Hickingbottom’s cell and several others and took pictures of the alleged black mold. He
concluded, however, that no black mold was present in the prisoners’ cells.
In March 2022, Holcomb transferred Hickingbottom to a new cell because of
Hickingbottom’s concerns about black mold. But Hickingbottom filed a grievance
complaining that there was black mold in his new cell, and the cleaning supplies did
not prevent the black mold from growing back.
Hickingbottom’s issues with black mold persisted, and in April 2022, the prison
contracted with an environmental consulting firm to conduct a mold assessment. The
firm’s representatives conducted visual inspections of two cell blocks and several
cells—but not Hickingbottom’s. Based on these inspections, the firm found only minor
mold growth and concluded that it did not present a risk to the prisoners’ health.
Following the assessment, Vanihel temporarily relocated prisoners, including
Hickingbottom, so sanitation workers could power wash and scrub the cells where
prisoners had complained of black mold. Holcomb acknowledged in an email to
another prison official in April that the black mold in Hickingbottom’s cell was an
ongoing issue and directed staff to provide prisoners with cleaning supplies.
Hickingbottom filed another grievance in April 2022. But a non-party grievance
specialist dismissed the grievance, saying: “Building was assessed by professional.
Frivolous. Nothing further.”
In September 2022, Hickingbottom took scrapings of the suspected black mold in
his cell and sent them to an environmental consulting firm for testing. The samples
tested positive for high levels of three types of toxic mold. Hickingbottom then sent
copies of the lab report to Vanihel, Hendrix, and Holcomb. Shortly after, the prison
again transferred Hickingbottom and other prisoners to allow sanitation workers to
clean his cell.
Hickingbottom sued Holcomb, Hendrix, Templeton, Wellington, Yarber,
Angeles-Mora, and Vanihel, for violating his rights under the Eighth Amendment by

-- 3 of 6 --

No. 25-1344 Page 4
acting with deliberate indifference to the black mold in his cells. See § 1983. The
defendants then moved for summary judgment.
The court entered summary judgment for the defendants. The court first ruled
that a reasonable jury could find that the presence of black mold was an objectively
serious condition. But the court determined that because prison officials had reasonably
responded to Hickingbottom’s complaints of black mold, no reasonable jury could
conclude that the officials were deliberately indifferent.
On appeal, Hickingbottom challenges the entry of summary judgment, arguing
that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference by persisting with ineffective
efforts to remediate the black mold. The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel
and unusual punishment requires prison officials to provide humane conditions of
confinement, including adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. Balle, 73 F.4th
at 552. To survive summary judgment, Hickingbottom needed to present some evidence
from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the defendants were aware of an
excessive risk to his health or safety but intentionally disregarded it. Id. A prison official
acts with intentional disregard where he “fail[s] to take reasonable measures to abate” a
known risk to a prisoner’s health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994).
But establishing intentional disregard is a “‘high hurdle and an exacting standard’” and
requires “‘something approaching a total unconcern for the prisoner’s welfare.’” Balle,
73 F.4th at 553 (quoting Stockton v. Milwaukee County, 44 F.4th 605, 615 (7th Cir. 2022)).
Here, no reasonable jury could find that the prison officials were deliberately
indifferent to the black mold because they took reasonable steps to address the issue,
see Thomas v. Blackard, 2 F.4th 716, 721 (7th Cir. 2021), even if those steps ultimately fell
short, see Rasho v. Jeffreys, 22 F.4th 703, 711 (7th Cir. 2022). When Hickingbottom first
complained about black mold in his cell in November 2021, he was provided with
cleaning supplies and continued to have regular access to those supplies. Within two
months—following continued complaints from Hickingbottom—Holcomb, Yarber, and
Hendrix inspected Hickingbottom’s cell but did not find any black mold. And
Angeles-Mora relayed Hickingbottom’s complaints of mold to Hendrix. Even still,
prison officials transferred Hickingbottom to a new cell two months later to address his
concerns about ongoing black mold.
After Hickingbottom expressed concerns about his new cell, prison officials hired
a consulting firm to inspect for black mold. The firm concluded there was only minor
mold growth that did not pose a risk to prisoners’ health, but Vanihel still transferred

-- 4 of 6 --

No. 25-1344 Page 5
Hickingbottom to enable sanitation workers to wash and scrub his cell. Officials took all
of these steps within six months of Hickingbottom’s first complaint about black mold.
We recognize that Hickingbottom attested that black mold persisted after these cleaning
efforts, but the mold’s persistence is not by itself proof of deliberate indifference.
Cf. Sain v. Wood, 512 F.3d 886, 895 (7th Cir. 2008) (persistence of bug infestation over six
years despite regular exterminations did not show deliberate indifference). Prison
officials made repeated efforts to address Hickingbottom’s concerns and remediate any
possible black mold.
Hickingbottom argues that the findings from his September 2022 lab report
showing high levels of toxic mold in his cell support a conclusion that prison officials
acted with deliberate indifference. But before the report, prison officials had no reason
to question the April 2022 assessment from the environmental consulting firm that the
presence of minor mold growth did not pose a health risk. And when Hickingbottom
sent Vanihel, Holcomb, and Hendrix copies of his lab report, they responded by
transferring him to a new cell to allow sanitation workers to clean his cell. The officials’
response to Hickingbottom’s lab report thus does not demonstrate “the callous
disregard required to make out an Eighth Amendment claim.” Rasho, 22 F.4th at 710.
II.
We next address Hickingbottom’s claim that Holcomb acted with deliberate
indifference to his rights under the Eighth Amendment by failing to address the lack of
heat in Hickingbottom’s cell. This claim proceeded to trial, where Hickingbottom was
represented by appointed counsel. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Holcomb.
On appeal, Hickingbottom does not contest the jury’s verdict in favor of
Holcomb. Rather, he argues that his right to effective counsel under the Sixth
Amendment was violated when his lawyer did not challenge the all-white jury venire.
Hickingbottom contends that the jury was not a fair cross-section of the community.
But litigants in civil cases have no constitutional right to counsel, so ineffective
assistance of counsel is not a ground for reversal. Diggs v. Ghosh, 850 F.3d 905, 911
(7th Cir. 2017). Moreover, challenges to the racial composition of a venire must be
brought “before the voir dire examination begins, or within seven days after the party
discovered or could have discovered, by the exercise of diligence, the grounds therefor,
whichever is earlier.” 28 U.S.C. § 1867(c). Hickingbottom does not assert that he timely
objected to the composition of the jury pool, so his argument is waived. See 28 U.S.C.

-- 5 of 6 --

No. 25-1344 Page 6
§ 1867(e). Regardless, Hickingbottom had to show that the under-representation of
African Americans in the venire was due to their systematic exclusion from the jury
selection process. See United States v. Hatchett, 31 F.3d 1411, 1426 (7th Cir. 1994)
(discussing Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979)). But he points to nothing in the
record to establish that African Americans were systematically excluded from the jury
selection process.
AFFIRMED.

-- 6 of 6 --