Victor Lemmons, Jr. v. John Chambers, Jail Administrator

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2318
___________________________
Victor Lemmons, Jr.
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
John Chambers, Jail Administrator; Trevor Kilmer, Correction Officer; Faith Doe,
Individual Capacity; Dave Doe, Individual Capacity; Daniel Doe, Individual
Capacity; T. Baliva, Individual Capacity
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau
____________
Submitted: August 7, 2023
Filed: August 11, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Victor Lemmons, Jr. appeals the district court’s preservice dismissal of his pro
se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We grant Lemmons leave to appeal in forma pauperis,
and, for the reasons stated below, affirm in part and reverse in part.

-- 1 of 2 --

We agree with the district court that Lemmons’s claims based on medical
treatment by unlicensed staff failed to state a claim. See Kaden v. Slykhuis, 651 F.3d
966, 968 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (reviewing dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915
de novo). His claims concerning Jail Administrator John Chambers’s failure to
respond to his grievances, failure to ensure he received a jail policy manual and
mailing supplies, and failure to remedy his lack of running water and hygiene
supplies were also properly dismissed. See id.
We find, however, that Lemmons’s allegations that he developed respiratory
issues due to mold exposure in the jail for his entire 7-month detention, and that he
informed Chambers about the mold problem through a grievance, were sufficient to
survive preservice dismissal. See Thurmond v. Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007, 1012 (8th
Cir. 2020) (noting that inmates have broad constitutional right to reasonably adequate
sanitation, particularly over lengthy course of time, and that presence of mold might
give rise to unconstitutionally unsanitary prison conditions); Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d
966, 968 (8th Cir. 1995) (explaining that supervisor may be liable under § 1983 when
his corrective inaction constitutes deliberate indifference toward violation).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings on the mold
exposure claim against defendant Chambers, and affirm the dismissal of the other
claims.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --