Smith v. Schoenbeck et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PAUL SMITH, #B64568, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 3:24-cv-01807-MAB
)
ANTHONY WILLS, 	)
OFFICER KNIGHT, 	)
OFFICER DELANEY, 	)
JON LOFTUS, and 	)
LATOYA HUGHES, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Paul Smith filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 10) pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials who allegedly subjected him to unconstitutional
conditions of confinement in disciplinary segregation at Menard Correctional Center.
Plaintiff alleges that he was denied a mattress, bedding, and cleaning supplies. He seeks
declaratory, monetary, and injunctive relief consisting of an order expunging the
disciplinary ticket that resulted in his placement in segregation. Id.
The Second Amended Complaint is now before the Court for screening under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A.1 Any portion that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim
for relief, or requests money damages from an immune defendant must be dismissed. Id.
1 The Court has jurisdiction to screen the Second Amended Complaint in light of Plaintiff’s consent to the
full jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, and the limited consent by the Illinois Department of Corrections to
the exercise of Magistrate Judge jurisdiction as set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding between
this Court and the Illinois Department of Corrections.
Case 3:24-cv-01807-MAB Document 12 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
SECOND A MENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff sets forth the following allegations in the Second Amended Complaint
(Doc. 10, pp. 1-9): When he transferred to Menard on October 27, 2023, Plaintiff was
placed in segregation for 28 days as punishment for a disciplinary ticket he received at
Western Illinois Correctional Center. Plaintiff complains about the poor living conditions
he endured in Cell 451. The cell, sink, and toilet were extremely dirty and encrusted with
“crud.” No cleaning supplies were available. Instead of a bed, there was a “piece” of foul-
smelling mattress and no bedding. Id.
Plaintiff requested a replacement mattress, bedding, and cleaning supplies. He
spoke directly to Safety & Sanitation Officer Delaney on three separate occasions. Officer
Delaney agreed to look for a mattress but never provided one. The officer instructed
Plaintiff to ask a gallery officer for bedding and cleaning supplies. When Plaintiff did so,
Gallery Officer Knight checked the mattress and said he would look for a replacement.
However, the officer never provided one. He also failed to provide any cleaning supplies
for 28 days and failed to provide bedding for 9 days. Id.
According to Plaintiff, he reported the unsanitary living conditions in a letter to
Warden Wills and requested adequate bedding and cleaning supplies. Warden Wills did
not respond to the first letter or a second letter sent a week later, so Plaintiff sent a
complaint about the living conditions to Governor J.B. Pritzker. Warden Wills responded
two weeks later by indicating that cleaning supplies were passed out to inmates.
However, Plaintiff says they were not. Id.
Plaintiff further alleges that Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) Director
Case 3:24-cv-01807-MAB Document 12 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
Latoya Hughes failed to address the inhumane living conditions even after Plaintiff filed
grievances and letters.
Administrative Review Board (ARB) Chairperson Jon Loftus had authority to
dismiss the disciplinary ticket that resulted in Plaintiff’s punishment with segregation.
Plaintiff contends that Loftus violated his due process rights by failing to dismiss the
ticket and thereby subjecting him to inhumane living conditions in segregation. Id.
During his 28 days in segregation, Plaintiff never received a replacement mattress
or cleaning supplies. And for 9 days, he also lacked bedding. Plaintiff’s exposure to these
unsanitary living conditions, dust, and mites caused a flare-up of his severe, chronic
allergy and sinus problems, and he developed a rash. In addition, he developed neck and
back pain after sleeping on the inadequate mattress. Id.
DISCUSSION
The Court designates the following counts in the pro se Second Amended
Complaint:
Count 1: 	Eighth 	Amendment 	claim 	against 	Officers 	Delaney 	and
Knight for denying Plaintiff access to adequate bedding and
cleaning supplies in disciplinary segregation for 28 days
beginning October 27, 2023, after he spoke to both officers
about the filthy cell, soiled mattress, and lack of bedding.
Count 2: 	Eighth Amendment claim against Warden Wills and IDOC
Director Hughes for denying Plaintiff access to adequate
bedding and cleaning supplies in disciplinary segregation for
28 days beginning October 27, 2023, after he filed letters,
complaints, or grievances to report the filthy cell, soiled
mattress, and lack of bedding.
Count 3: 	Fourteenth 	Amendment 	due 	process 	claim 	or 	Eighth
Amendment 	deliberate 	indifference 	claim 	against 	ARB
Case 3:24-cv-01807-MAB Document 12 Filed 12/05/25 Page 3 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>

4
Chairperson Loftus for failing to dismiss the disciplinary
ticket that resulted in Plaintiff’s punishment with 28 days of
segregation in inhumane living conditions in Cell 451.
Any other claim mentioned in the Second Amended Complaint but not addressed here
is considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under Twombly.2
Counts 1 and 2
The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment of convicted
persons. U.S. C ONST. amend VIII. The amendment imposes a duty on prison officials to
provide inmates with humane conditions of confinement and ensure that they receive
adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. Thomas v. Blackard, 2 F.4th 716, 719 (7th
Cir. 2021) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994)). To show a violation of the
Eighth Amendment, an inmate must allege an objectively serious deprivation and each
defendant’s subjective awareness and disregard of a substantial risk of serious harm to
the inmate. Id. at 720 (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837).
At 	this 	stage 	of 	the 	proceedings, 	Plaintiff 	describes 	a 	sufficiently 	serious
deprivation to support an Eighth Amendment claim. According to the allegations, he
spent 28 days in a dirty cell without cleaning supplies or adequate bedding. As a result
of his exposure to these conditions, he suffered from a flare-up of his serious allergy and
sinus problems, a rash, and neck and back pain. See Vinning-El v. Long, 482 F.3d 923, 923-
25 (7th Cir. 2007) (reversing summary judgment where prisoner housed in filthy cell and
deprived of basic sanitation items and mattress for six days); Johnson v. Pelker, 891 F.2d
2 See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (action fails to state a claim if it does not plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”).
Case 3:24-cv-01807-MAB Document 12 Filed 12/05/25 Page 4 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>

5
136, 139-40 (7th Cir. 1989) (reversing summary judgment where prisoner’s requests for
cleaning supplies were denied while he spent three days in cell with feces-stained walls
and no running water).
According to Plaintiff, Officers Delaney and Knight were aware of the filthy
conditions, inadequate bedding, and lack of cleaning supplies. Plaintiff spoke directly to
them about these conditions repeatedly. Even so, the officers deliberately disregarded his
requests for a replacement mattress, bedding, and cleaning supplies. Therefore, Count 1
will proceed against both officers.
Plaintiff also notified Warden Wills of the inhumane living conditions repeatedly
by writing to him directly. Weeks later, Plaintiff received a single response from Warden
Wills indicating that cleaning supplies were provided to inmates. However, Plaintiff says
he never received them. Construed liberally and given the stage of the proceedings,
Plaintiff’s allegations sufficiently articulate a claim of deliberate indifference against the
Warden for turning a blind eye to Plaintiff’s living conditions. Count 1 will proceed
against Warden Wills.
However, the allegations against IDOC Director Hughes fall short of articulating
an Eighth Amendment claim. Like all claims brought under § 1983, liability requires
personal involvement in a constitutional deprivation. See Horshaw v. Casper, 910 F.3d 1027,
1029 (7th Cir. 2018). Plaintiff relies on vague allegations about grievances and letters that
could have or should have put Director Hughes on notice of his inhumane living
conditions. Plaintiff offers no information about the date of each communication, a
description of the content, the place he sent each one, or any responses he received.
Case 3:24-cv-01807-MAB Document 12 Filed 12/05/25 Page 5 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>

6
Without this basic information, Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted against Director Hughes. Count 1 will be dismissed against Director Hughes.
Count 3
Plaintiff brings a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim for the disciplinary
ticket he received at Western Illinois Correctional Center.3 Unlike his earlier due process
claims in the original Complaint and Amended Complaint, Plaintiff does not challenge
the underlying disciplinary ticket as false. Nor does he challenge any aspect of the
disciplinary hearing as flawed. Plaintiff simply observes that ARB Chairperson Loftus
could have dismissed the ticket and prevented his transfer into segregation but failed to
do so. These allegations simply do not articulate a Fourteenth Amendment due process
claim against Loftus in the Second Amended Complaint.
Moreover, Plaintiff makes no claim that Loftus had knowledge of his living
conditions or personal involvement in his continued exposure to harm in Cell 451.
Plaintiff fails to allege that Loftus had any actual knowledge of or personal involvement
in the decision to move Plaintiff into a dirty cell with inadequate bedding and no cleaning
supplies. Horshaw v. Casper, 910 F.3d at 1029. Moreover, even if the Court viewed this
claim as one under the Eighth Amendment, Count 3 would still fail to survive screening
against Loftus because Plaintiff has failed to allege his subjective awareness of his living
3 When screening the original Complaint (Docs. 1 and 6) and First Amended Complaint (Docs. 7 and 9), the
Court summarized the Fourteenth Amendment due process standard applicable to claims arising in the
prison disciplinary context and applied that standard to Plaintiff’s direct challenge to the underlying
disciplinary ticket and hearing that resulted in his punishment with segregation. The Court will not repeat
that standard here because Plaintiff has abandoned his direct challenge to the disciplinary ticket in the
Second Amended Complaint.
Case 3:24-cv-01807-MAB Document 12 Filed 12/05/25 Page 6 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>

7
conditions or personal involvement in the harm he incurred.
DISPOSITION
The Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 10) survives preliminary review under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
COUNT 1 will proceed against Defendants OFFICER DELANEY and OFFICER
KNIGHT, and COUNT 2 will proceed against Defendant WARDEN ANTHONY
WILLS.
However, COUNTS 1, 2, and 3 are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to
state a claim against ALL OTHER DEFENDANTS. Defendants JON LOFTUS and
LATOYA HUGHES are DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to TERMINATE JON LOFTUS and LATOYA
HUGHES as parties in CM/ECF.
With regard to COUNTS 1 and 2, the Clerk of Court shall prepare for WARDEN
ANTHONY WILLS, OFFICER DELANEY, and OFFICER KNIGHT: (1) Form 5 (Notice
of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of
Service of Summons). The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail these forms, the Second Amended
Complaint (Doc. 10), and this Memorandum and Order to each Defendant’s place of
employment as identified by Plaintiff. If a Defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver
of Service of Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the date the forms were
sent, the Clerk shall take appropriate steps to effect formal service on that Defendant, and
the Court will require that Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent
authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Case 3:24-cv-01807-MAB Document 12 Filed 12/05/25 Page 7 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>

8
If a Defendant cannot be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the
employer shall furnish the Clerk with Defendant’s current work address, or, if not
known, Defendant’s last-known address. This information shall be used only for sending
the forms as directed above or for formally effecting service. Any documentation of the
address shall be retained only by the Clerk and shall not be maintained in the court file
or disclosed by the Clerk.
Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to
the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 10) and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 244 and SDIL-Local Rule
8.2, Defendants need only respond to the issues stated in this Merit Review Order.
Plaintiff is further ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the
Clerk of Court and the opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court
will not independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not
later than 14 days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply
with this order will cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and may result
in dismissal of this action for want of prosecution. See F ED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 5, 2025
/s/ Mark A. Beatty
MARK A. BEATTY
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:24-cv-01807-MAB Document 12 Filed 12/05/25 Page 8 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>

9
Notice to Plaintiff
The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the Defendants of your lawsuit
and serve them with a copy of your Second Amended Complaint. After service has been
achieved, Defendants will enter appearances and file Answers to your Second Amended
Complaint. It will likely take at least 60 days from the date of this Order to receive the
Defendants’ Answers, but it is entirely possible that it will take 90 days or more. When
Defendants have filed Answers, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order containing
important information on deadlines, discovery, and procedures. Plaintiff is advised to
wait until counsel has appeared for Defendants before filing any motions, to give the
Defendants notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before
Defendants’ counsel has filed an appearance will generally be denied as premature.
Plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the Court at this time, unless specifically
directed to do so.
Case 3:24-cv-01807-MAB Document 12 Filed 12/05/25 Page 9 of 9 Page ID
#<pageID>