Case 2:22-cv-00559-JRS-MKK Document 75 Filed 03/19/25 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:
`3441
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
`
`
`
`RAFAEL L. WALKER,
`
`
`
`
`
`JAY HENDRIX, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No. 2:22-cv-00559-JRS-MKK
`
`ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Plaintiff Rafael Walker, who is incarcerated at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility,
`
`alleges in this case that he has been exposed to various unconstitutional conditions of confinement
`
`at that facility. The Defendants seek summary judgment on Mr. Walker's claims. For the reasons
`
`below, that motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
`
`I.
`Standard of Review
`
`A motion for summary judgment asks the Court to find that a trial is unnecessary because
`
`there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and, instead, the movant is entitled to judgment
`
`as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). When reviewing a motion for summary judgment,
`
`the Court views the record and draws all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable
`
`to the nonmoving party. Khungar v. Access Cmty. Health Network, 985 F.3d 565, 572–73 (7th Cir.
`
`2021). It cannot weigh evidence or make credibility determinations on summary judgment because
`
`those tasks are left to the fact-finder. Miller v. Gonzalez, 761 F.3d 822, 827 (7th Cir. 2014). A
`
`court only has to consider the materials cited by the parties, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); it need
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00559-JRS-MKK Document 75 Filed 03/19/25 Page 2 of 18 PageID #:
`3442
`
`not "scour the record" for evidence that might be relevant. Grant v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 870 F.3d
`
`562, 573−74 (7th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up).
`
`A party seeking summary judgment must inform the district court of the basis for its motion
`
`and identify the record evidence it contends demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of
`
`material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
`
`Whether a party asserts that a fact is undisputed or genuinely disputed, the party must
`
`support the asserted fact by citing to particular parts of the record, including depositions,
`
`documents, or affidavits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). Failure to properly support a fact in
`
`opposition to a movant's factual assertion can result in the movant's fact being considered
`
`undisputed, and potentially in the grant of summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
`
`II.
`Factual Background
`
`Because Defendants have moved for summary judgment under Rule 56(a), the Court views
`
`and recites the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws all
`
`reasonable inferences in that party's favor. Khungar, 985 F.3d at 572–73.1
`
`A. Mold
`
`Mr. Walker was incarcerated at Wabash Valley from January 2021 through December 15,
`
`2023. He lived in the Secured Housing Unit ("SHU" a.k.a. "SCU"), which is a restricted housing
`
`unit where inmates are restricted to their cell for twenty-three hours per day and do not have a
`
`cellmate. Dkt. 61-1 at 13-14 (Walker Dep.). He lived in several different cells during the time that
`
`
`1 As a general matter, the Court notes that Mr. Walker often refers to "Defendants" in his response to the
`motion for summary judgment and in the designated evidence. These references have been disregarded in
`this statement of facts because these general references are not enough to provide sufficient evidence that
`any particular defendant was involved in the actions Mr. Walker claims. Daugherty v. Page, 906 F.3d 606,
`611 (7th Cir. 2018) ("Summary judgment is not a time to be coy: conclusory statements not grounded in
`specific facts are not enough.").
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00559-JRS-MKK Document 75 Filed 03/19/25 Page 3 of 18 PageID #:
`3443
`
`he was incarcerated in the SCU. Id. When Mr. Walker transferred to Wabash Valley, he noticed
`
`"this black stuff that grows on the doors, the toilets, the vents, the walls." Id. at 18. Mr. Walker
`
`described the substance as "black spores…like something is growing out of the wall like a fungus
`
`or something." Dkt. 61-1 at 19-20. The substance reappeared no matter how he attempted to clean
`
`it. Id. at 18.
`
`Individuals in the SCU are responsible for cleaning their cells and were given the cleaning
`
`chemical GermAway to do so. Dkt. 61-3 ¶ 6 (Vanihel Aff.). Individuals in the SCU are given
`
`cleaning supplies several times per week. Dkt. 61-4 ¶ 5 (Simmerman Aff.). Mr. Walker tried to
`
`clean the substance with germicide and requested scratch pads, but he was never given any. Dkt.
`
`62-1 at 20-21.
`
`Mr. Walker notified Defendants about the presence of mold in his cell and filed grievances
`
`about the mold. Id. at 21; see also dkt. 61-2 at 98, 105 (Walker Grievances). Indeed, Wabash
`
`Valley received multiple complaints alleging mold in the SCU. Dkt. 61-3 ¶ 7. The SCU was
`
`inspected for mold by correctional staff, and they found no mold. Id. ¶ 8. On April 3, 2022, August
`
`Mack Environmental, Inc. ("August Mack") conducted a targeted mold assessment at Wabash
`
`Valley. August Mack was contracted in response to the allegations of mold in the SCU. Dkt. 61-3
`
`¶ 10 (Vanihel Aff.). August Mack performed visual assessments for mold on Cell Block 900 and
`
`Cell Block 700 in the SCU. Dkt. 61-6 at 1 (August Mack Report). They found "no significant
`
`evidence or signs of building-wide mold-related concerns…in the areas included as part of this
`
`assessment." Id. at 5. They found "[s]everal areas of minor mold growth and water damage…." Id.
`
`They recommended routine general cleaning of the cells to eliminate the potential for minor mold
`
`impacts due to general occupancy and usage of the areas. Id. at 5. In addition, individuals in the
`
`SCU were moved to temporary cell locations while sanitation crews scrubbed the cells. Dkt. 61-3
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00559-JRS-MKK Document 75 Filed 03/19/25 Page 4 of 18 PageID #:
`3444
`
`¶ 11; dkt. 61-1 at 25-26. Sanitation workers cleaned cells and showers with PerformX. Dkt. 61-3
`
`¶ 12. Defendant Christopher Holcomb, a lieutenant in the SCU, also used PerformX to clean cells
`
`when individuals alleged mold was present. Dkt. 61-5 ¶ 2. He also used bleach to clean the showers
`
`in the SCU every two weeks. Id.
`
`In September of 2022, Mr. Walker took samples from his cell and sent them to Envirohealth
`
`Consulting, who confirmed that there was mold in his cell. Dkt. 62-1 at 23-24; dkt 71-1 at 174,
`
`191. He showed those results to Lieutenant Holcomb. Dkt. 62-1 at 31.2 There is no evidence that
`
`any additional efforts were made to remediate the mold at that time.
`
`Mr. Walker submitted an informal grievance to Ms. Crichfield on March 26, 2023, stating
`
`that there was mold in his cell. Dkt. 71-1 at 15.
`
`B. Heat
`
`Mr. Walker was on suicide watch from December 28, 2021, until January 5, 2022. Dkt. 62-
`
`1 at 64-65. During that time, he was stripped of all his clothes and possessions. Id. He noticed that
`
`there was not any heat going into the cell. Id. at 64. The cold conditions continued when he moved
`
`back into his cell for about a month. Id. at 65. After he was released from suicide watch, Mr.
`
`Walker had a jumpsuit, boxers, t-shirts, socks, sweatpants, a coat, and a winter hat. Id. at 65-66.
`
`While Mr. Walker contends without support in his response to the motion for summary judgment
`
`that the temperature in his cell was below freezing, he testified at his deposition that he does not
`
`know what the temperature was inside of his cell. Id. at 66.
`
`
`2 Mr. Walker asserts in his response to the motion for summary judgment generally that he made the
`Defendants aware of the test results, but the document he cites for this proposition is a Grievance Appeal,
`which was signed by a non-party. Dkt. 71 at 10 (citing Dkt. 71-1 at 81-82). He also testified at his deposition
`that he "may have" shared the results with Warden Vanihel and Ms. Crichfield, but this is not specific
`enough testimony to allow a factfinder to conclude that he did do so. Dkt. 61-1 at 33; See Daugherty, 906
`F.3d at 611.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00559-JRS-MKK Document 75 Filed 03/19/25 Page 5 of 18 PageID #:
`3445
`
`During this time, COVID-19 was affecting production and delivery of items needed for the
`
`furnaces at Wabash Valley. Dkt. 61-3 ¶ 13. Specifically, Wabash Valley could not timely receive
`
`the motherboards needed for the heating system. Id. When a heating system within the facility
`
`went down, staff within the SCU provided extra blankets to individuals, placed industrial space
`
`heaters on the ranges in the SCU, and covered outside-facing doors with blankets to help insulate
`
`the building. Id. ¶ 15. Temperature checks are performed and logged daily in the SCU. DKt. 61-3
`
`¶ 14; dkt. 61-7 (Temperature Logs). Those logs reflect that the temperature in the SCU at the time
`
`at issue was between 68 and 72 degrees. See generally id.
`
`C. Lighting
`
`Cells within the SCU have one framed-in light that includes a daytime light and a nighttime
`
`light. The nighttime light provides low light so that staff can see into the cell during the night for
`
`security reasons. Dkt. 61-3 ¶ 20. There are also backup lights in the SCU so that, whenever a light
`
`went out, inmates were not left in the dark. There is also a small amount of natural light that gets
`
`in through the ceiling in the SCU during the day if lights are not working or turned off. Id. at ⁋ 21.
`
`Mr. Walker's light in his cell was left off for extended periods of time, and he was unable
`
`to read. Dkt. 61-1 at 69-70. Other times, his light would be left on which affected his sleeping
`
`ability. Id.
`
`D. Day Room and Rec Cages
`
`Mr. Walker contends that the walls in the dayroom, which included "anything outside [his]
`
`cell," were not clean and contained urine, feces, and dry food. Dkt. 61-1 at 55-56. Mr. Walker
`
`never had access to the dayroom outside of being transported through the dayroom. Id. at 56. The
`
`day room, including the range in the SCU, is cleaned every day by the detail workers who are
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00559-JRS-MKK Document 75 Filed 03/19/25 Page 6 of 18 PageID #:
`3446
`
`inmates in the SCU. Dkt. 61-5 at ¶ 15. Mr. Walker testifies that detail workers were unable to reach
`
`the affected areas. Dkt. 61-1 at 58.
`
`Mr. Walker filed multiple grievances about the conditions in the dayroom and rec cages,
`
`to which Defendants Crichfield and Wellington responded. Dkt. 61-1 at 61. Netting was placed
`
`around the outdoor recreation cages where inmates in the SCU take their recreation to prevent
`
`animals or pests such as birds from getting into the cages. Dkt. 61-5 ¶ 16. The outside rec cages
`
`were also cleaned at least once per week.3 Id.
`
`E. Flooding
`
`Mr. Walker alleges that his cell was flooded with toilet water contaminated with feces and
`
`urine on several occasions.4 He complained to Defendant Stevenson, but Stevenson refused to pull
`
`Mr. Walker out of his cell to clean. Dkt. 61-1 at 47.5 Another time, Defendants Neff and
`
`Simmerman denied him supplies. Dkt. 61-1 at 47; dkt. 71-1 at 219.
`
`F. Water
`
`Periodic flooding happens in the SCU, which is usually caused by inmates intentionally
`
`clogging drains in their cells. Dkt. 61-5 ¶ 17. When there was flooding in the SCU, staff would
`
`locate the source of the leak, then shut the water off to prevent further flooding. Id. A crew would
`
`
`3 Mr. Walker attempts to contest this fact, stating that "multiple witnesses, including myself have witnessed
`that Defendants rarely cleaned cages." Dkt. 71 at 26. But Mr. Walker has not presented evidence from
`anyone with direct personal knowledge regarding whether the rec cages were cleaned regularly. See dkt.
`71-1 at 92-93 (testifying that he was not in view of the rec cages and went out to recreation only every other
`day).
`4 The Defendants contend that no claim regarding the flooding of Mr. Walker's cell was recognized by the
`Court, but the Court's screening order did recognize claims "regarding the condition of his cell…." Dkt. 18
`at 3.
`5 Mr. Walker contends, without designating supporting evidence, in his motion for summary judgment that
`Defendants Stevenson and Scott refused to let him clean his cell, but at his deposition, he testified only that
`Defendant Stevenson denied him supplies. Dkt. 61-1 at 47-48 ("I don't know if Officer Scott was with
`him."). He also contends that the grievance officials refused to address the issues with cleaning his cell. But
`he has not designated evidence to allow a conclusion that the grievance officers knew about the conditions
`of his cell at the time he was experiencing them.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00559-JRS-MKK Document 75 Filed 03/19/25 Page 7 of 18 PageID #:
`3447
`
`then clear off water from a range and inmates with water in their cell were removed while their
`
`cells were sanitized. Id. Once the issue with the flooding subsided, the water was turned back on.
`
`Id. ¶ 17. During the cleaning, Mr. Walker's water would be cut off for hours at a time. Dkt. 61-1
`
`at 18.6
`
`Mr. Walker filed a grievance on November 8, 2021, alleging that there was flooding, and
`
`that his water was cut off. Dkt. 61-2 at 3.
`
`G. Retaliation
`
`Mr. Walker filed "hundreds if not thousands of grievances" while incarcerated at WVCF.
`
`Dkt. 61-1 at 71.
`
`He testified that he filed a retaliation claim against Defendants Wellington and Crichfield
`
`because they would respond to his grievances by calling them frivolous. Id. at 71. In responding
`
`to grievances, Defendants were required to follow the IDOC Offender Grievance Policy. Dkt. 61-
`
`9 ¶ 6 (Wellington Aff.). The policy regarding the grievance process prohibits inmates from abusing
`
`or misusing the offender grievance process by attempting to flood the process with excessive
`
`numbers of grievances or frivolous grievances. Id. ¶ 9. If an inmate filed multiple grievances on
`
`the same issue within a close period, they receive a response to the first grievance, and the others
`
`were logged but returned to the offender as duplicative. Id. ¶ 10.
`
`Mr. Walker also testified generally that "all of the Defendants engaged in retaliation of
`
`protected speech," and that their retaliation was a "multitude of acts. It wasn't anything specific."
`
`Dkt. 61-1 at 81. He did state that, on one occasion, Officer Stevenson told him that he was refusing
`
`Mr. Walker cleaning supplies when his cell had been flooded with contaminated water because he
`
`had filed a lawsuit. Id. at 47. In addition, Lieutenant Holcomb, as well as other Defendants referred
`
`
`6 Mr. Walker contends in his summary judgment response that he was left without water for "over a month,"
`but he does not designate evidence to support this contention.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00559-JRS-MKK Document 75 Filed 03/19/25 Page 8 of 18 PageID #:
`3448
`
`to Mr. Walker as a snitch and a homosexual for filing a complaint and complaining about an assault
`
`that happened against him in January of 2022. Id. at 82-84.7 Mr. Walker has provided an affidavit
`
`stating: "I have been threatened and harassed by Sgt. Jobe, Sgt. Simmerman, Ofc. Tierney, Ofc.
`
`Stevenson, Ofc. Neff and multiple other IDOC Staff. Sergeant Jobe and Officer Tierney have told
`
`multiple inmates that I'm a snitch and my life has been threatened on multiple occasions and I have
`
`been told that I will be killed if I don't pay for safety." Dkt. 71-1 at 236.8
`
`III.
`Discussion
`
`The Defendants seek summary judgment on Mr. Walker's Eighth Amendment conditions-
`
`of-confinement and First Amendment retaliation claims.
`
`A. Conditions of Confinement
`
`Under the Eighth Amendment, "prisoners cannot be confined in inhumane conditions."
`
`Thomas v. Blackard, 2 F.4th 716, 720 (7th Cir. 2021) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
`
`832 (1994)). A conditions-of-confinement claim includes both an objective and subjective
`
`component. Giles v. Godinez, 914 F.3d 1040, 1051 (7th Cir. 2019). Under the objective
`
`component, a prisoner must show that the conditions were objectively serious and created "an
`
`excessive risk to his health and safety." Id. (cleaned up). Under the subjective component, a
`
`prisoner must establish that the defendants had a culpable state of mind — that they "were
`
`subjectively aware of these conditions and refused to take steps to correct them, showing deliberate
`
`
`7 Mr. Walker testified at his deposition that "I was personally told by some of these Defendants and others
`named in this case and others not named in this case that this was the reason why I was being treated the
`way I was being treated." Dkt. 61-1 at 81-82. Again, this testimony is not specific enough to allow a
`conclusion that any particular person told Mr. Walker he was being treated in a specific way because of
`filing grievances or lawsuits.
`8 Mr. Walker has submitted affidavits from other inmates stating they have witnessed Wabash Valley
`officers retaliate against Mr. Walker. See dkt. 71-1 at 237-246. But none of these affidavits identify specific
`officers who are alleged to have retaliated against Mr. Walker.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00559-JRS-MKK Document 75 Filed 03/19/25 Page 9 of 18 PageID #:
`3449
`
`indifference." Thomas, 2 F.4th at 720. Proving the subjective component is a "high hurdle" that
`
`"requires something approaching a total unconcern for the prisoner's welfare in the face of serious
`
`risks." Donald v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 982 F.3d 451, 458 (7th Cir. 2020) (internal
`
`quotations omitted). Neither "negligence [n]or even gross negligence is enough[.]" Lee v. Young,
`
`533 F.3d 505, 509 (7th Cir. 2008).
`
`In addition, "individual liability under § 1983 . . . requires personal involvement in the
`
`alleged constitutional deprivation." Colbert v. City of Chicago, 851 F.3d 649, 657 (7th Cir. 2017)
`
`(internal quotation omitted) (citing Wolf-Lillie v. Sonquist, 699 F.2d 864, 869 (7th Cir. 1983)
`
`("Section 1983 creates a cause of action based on personal liability and predicated upon fault. An
`
`individual cannot be held liable in a § 1983 action unless he caused or participated in an alleged
`
`constitutional deprivation.... A causal connection, or an affirmative link, between the misconduct
`
`complained of and the official sued is necessary.")).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Mold
`
`First, the Defendants do not dispute that the presence of mold could create an objectively
`
`serious condition. They argue, however, that they were not deliberately indifferent to that
`
`condition.
`
`
`
`Here, it is undisputed that Defendants: Provided individuals in the SCU with the cleaning
`
`chemical GermAway, dkt. 61-3 ¶ 6; inspected the SCU for mold and hired August Mack to conduct
`
`a mold assessment, which found some mold, but no evidence of a building-wide issue and
`
`recommended routine cleaning, among other things, dkt. 61-3 ¶ 8, 10; moved individuals in the
`
`SCU to temporary cells while sanitation workers cleaned them, dkt. 61-3 ¶ 11; and used PerformX
`
`to clean cells and bleach to clean the showers. Id. 61-5 ¶ 2.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00559-JRS-MKK Document 75 Filed 03/19/25 Page 10 of 18 PageID #:
`3450
`
`
`
`Defendants compare Mr. Walker's mold claims to those in Hickingbottom v. Hendrix, et
`
`al., 2:22-cv-38-JRS-MKK, in which the plaintiff brought Eighth Amendment claims based on
`
`similar allegations of mold in the Wabash Valley SCU. In that case, the designated evidence was
`
`that after Mr. Hickingbottom showed the September 2022 EnviroHealth report to Warden Vanihel
`
`and Lieutenant Holcomb, prison officials moved inmates and tried to remediate the mold, which
`
`led the Court to conclude that there was no evidence to support a deliberate indifference claim.
`
`Hickingbottom, dkt 89 at 9, 17. Here, the designated evidence is different. Mr. Walker testified
`
`that correctional officials moved inmates in the SCU to power wash the mold in June or July of
`
`2022, before the EnviroHealth report. Dkt. 61-1 at 25-26. Then, Mr. Walker showed the report to
`
`Lieutenant Holcomb. There is no designated evidence in this case regarding what steps Lieutenant
`
`Holcomb took after he was made aware of the September 2022 report.
`
`Here, like in Hickingbottom, there is no evidence that any Defendant was deliberately
`
`indifferent to the mold in Mr. Walker's housing unit before the EnviroHealth report. Defendants
`
`gave inmates cleaning supplies and power washed the range. There is therefore no evidence that
`
`the defendants at that time "were subjectively aware of these conditions and refused to take steps
`
`to correct them, showing deliberate indifference." Thomas, 2 F.4th at 720.
`
`But, after Lieutenant Holcomb was made aware of the EnviroHealth report, there is no
`
`designated evidence in this case that he took any additional measures to try to remediate the mold.
`
`Therefore, on the record before the Court, there is evidence from which a jury could conclude that
`
`Lieutenant Holcomb was aware that the mold in the SCU was still a problem and failed to take
`
`further measures to clean it. On the other hand, there is no evidence that any of the other
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00559-JRS-MKK Document 75 Filed 03/19/25 Page 11 of 18 PageID #:
`3451
`
`Defendants were aware of the EnviroHealth report.9 Therefore, all Defendants but Lieutenant
`
`Holcomb are entitled to summary judgment on this claim. See Colbert, 851 F.3d at 657.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Heat
`
`Under the Eighth Amendment, prison officials have a duty to provide humane conditions
`
`of confinement, including adequate heat. Haywood v. Hathaway, 842 F.3d 1026, 1030 (7th Cir.
`
`2016) (Eighth Amendment was violated when inmate was confined for 60 days in a cell with a
`
`broken window and temperatures below freezing with blowers blowing and guards refusing to
`
`provide blankets or coat).
`
`
`
`Here, however, there is no evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that
`
`Mr. Walker was denied adequate heat or that any of the defendants were deliberately indifferent
`
`to the cold in his cell. First, temperature checks were performed in the SCU daily and reflected
`
`that the temperature was regularly between about 68 and 72 degrees. Dkt. 61-7. Mr. Walker argues
`
`without citation to evidence that the temperature in his cell would drop below freezing, dkt. 71 at
`
`17, but he admitted at his deposition that he did not know the temperature in his cell, dkt. 61-1 at
`
`64-65. There is therefore no evidence that Mr. Walker was exposed to unconstitutionally cold
`
`temperatures. Further, although Wabash Valley did not always timely receive necessary parts for
`
`the heating system, SCU staff would provide extra blankets, place industrial space heaters on the
`
`SCU, and cover outside-facing doors with blankets. Dkt. 61-3 ¶ 15. There is therefore also no
`
`evidence that any of the Defendants was aware Mr. Walker was exposed to excessive cold and
`
`disregarded these conditions. The defendants are therefore entitled to summary judgment on Mr.
`
`Walker's claim that he was exposed to excessive cold.
`
`
`9 Mr. Walker designates one brief informal grievance he directed to Ms. Crichfield, but he doesn't provide
`affirmative evidence that he told her or any other defendant about the EnviroHealth report. See dkt. 71-12
`at 15.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00559-JRS-MKK Document 75 Filed 03/19/25 Page 12 of 18 PageID #:
`3452
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3. Flooding
`
`Mr. Walker alleges that his cell was flooded with toilet water contaminated with feces and
`
`urine on several occasions. He designates evidence that he complained to Defendant Stevenson
`
`and was denied cleaning supplies and that Defendants Neff and Simmerman also denied him
`
`cleaning supplies. Dkt. 61-1 at 47; dkt. 71-1 at 219. Exposure to human waste may violate the
`
`Eighth Amendment. See Hardeman v. Curran, 933 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2019) (recognizing
`
`clearly established right of inmates "not to be forced to live surrounded by their own and others'
`
`excrement"); Budd v. Motley, 711 F.3d 840, 842 (7th Cir. 2013) (inadequate sanitation and
`
`exposure to sewage can create adverse conditions that deprive a plaintiff of the minimal civilized
`
`measure of life's necessities); Merritt v. McClafferty, No. 3:21-CV-502-DRL, 2023 WL 8543578,
`
`at *2 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 11, 2023) ("a reasonable jury could conclude that housing Mr. Merritt in a
`
`cell with sewage for twelve hours for no reason denied him the minimal civilized measure of life's
`
`necessities.").
`
`
`
`Because Mr. Walker has designated evidence that Defendants Neff, Simmerman, and
`
`Stevenson knew his cell was flooded with toilet water and denied him cleaning supplies, they are
`
`not entitled to summary judgment on this claim.10
`
`
`
`
`
`4. Lighting
`
`Cells in the SCU have one framed-in light that includes a daytime light and a nighttime
`
`light. Dkt. 61-3 ¶ 20. The nighttime light provides low light so that staff can see into the cell during
`
`the night for security reasons. Id. There are also backup lights in the SCU so that, whenever a light
`
`went out, inmates were not left in the dark. And there is a small amount of natural light that gets
`
`in through the ceiling in the SCU during the day if lights are not working or turned off. Id. ¶ 21.
`
`
`10 Mr. Walker has not designated evidence that any other Defendant was involved in these acts.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00559-JRS-MKK Document 75 Filed 03/19/25 Page 13 of 18 PageID #:
`3453
`
`Mr. Walker contends that during his time in the SCU, the Defendants "repeatedly refused to turn
`
`his light on or off." Dkt. 71 at 16. He further claims that the Defendants often left his light on all
`
`day or off all day. Dkt. 71 at 35. He contends that, on one occasion, on April 7, 2022, he went
`
`without a light forcing him to eat, read, and write in the dark. Id. at 36.
`
`Mr. Walker does not designate evidence to dispute that there are backup lights in the SCU
`
`that provide light when the lights in a specific cell are out or that the light at night provides a low
`
`light to allow staff to see for security reasons. At most, he has presented evidence that his light
`
`was off or on at times. His allegations regarding the lighting in his cell are too vague to allow a
`
`conclusion that he was subjected an "extreme deprivation" which is required to maintain an Eighth
`
`Amendment claim. See Vasquez v. Frank, 290 Fed Appx. 927, 929 (7th Cir. 2008) (holding that
`
`"24–hour lighting involving a single, 9–watt fluorescent bulb does not objectively constitute an
`
`'extreme deprivation.'"). The Defendants are therefore entitled to summary judgment on this claim.
`
`
`
`5. Day Room and Rec Cages
`
`The Defendants also seek summary judgment on Mr. Walker's claims regarding the
`
`conditions of the day room and rec cages.
`
`First, the day room was cleaned daily. In addition, Mr. Walker was in the day room only
`
`when he was being transported through it. Because he spent so little time in the day room, there is
`
`no evidence that he was exposed to a serious risk to his health because of any alleged exposure to
`
`waste or dirt in the day room. Mr. Walker tries to resist this conclusion by arguing that his cell was
`
`within 10 feet of the day room and he was exposed to the unpleasant odors from the dayroom. Dkt.
`
`71 at 37. But Mr. Walker does not designate evidence regarding his proximity to the day room and
`
`has not shown that this kind of proximity to allegedly unsanitary conditions combined with
`
`walking through the day room constitutes the kind of prolonged exposure to unsanitary conditions
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00559-JRS-MKK Document 75 Filed 03/19/25 Page 14 of 18 PageID #:
`3454
`
`that would violate the Eighth Amendment. Love v. Milwaukee Cnty. Jail Staff, No. 23-CV-408-
`
`PP, 2023 WL 4238870, at *3 (E.D. Wis. June 28, 2023) (days-long exposure to unsanitary
`
`conditions are the type of conditions that constitute an extreme deprivation that would violate the
`
`Eighth Amendment) (citing cases). The same is true of the rec cages. The designated evidence is
`
`that the rec cages were cleaned regularly, that the Defendants made efforts to keep birds out of
`
`them, and that Mr. Walker spent only brief periods in the rec cages.
`
`The Defendants are therefore entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Walker's claims
`
`regarding the conditions of the day room and rec cages.
`
`
`
`6. Water
`
`When there is flooding within the SCU, staff within the SCU would locate the source of
`
`the leak, then shut the water off to prevent further flooding. A crew would then clear off water
`
`from a range and inmates with water in their cell were removed while their cell was sanitized.
`
`Once the issue with the flooding subsides, the water would be turned back on. Id. at 2-3, ¶ 17. The
`
`Defendants are therefore entitled to summary judgment on any claim that Mr. Walker's water was
`
`shut off for brief periods of time. See Young v. Schwenn, No. 19-CV-742-BBC, 2021 WL 3662906,
`
`at *4 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 18, 2021) (denying summary judgment on claims that prisoner was denied
`
`water for hours at a time).
`
`B. Retaliation
`
`
`
`To succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must come forward with
`
`evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that: (1) the plaintiff engaged in
`
`protected First Amendment activity; (2) he suffered a deprivation that would likely deter future
`
`First Amendment activity; and (3) the protected activity was a motivating factor in the defendants'
`
`decision to take the allegedly retaliatory action. Taylor v. Van Lanen, 27 F.4th 1280, 1284 (7th
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00559-JRS-MKK Document 75 Filed 03/19/25 Page 15 of 18 PageID #:
`3455
`
`Cir. 2022). If he does so, the burden shifts to the defendants to show that the deprivation would
`
`have occurred even if he had not engaged in protected activity. Manuel v. Nalley, 966 F.3d 668,
`
`680 (7th Cir. 2020). If they can make that showing, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to
`
`demonstrate that the proffered reason is pretextual or dishonest. Id.
`
`The Defendants do not dispute that Mr. Walker engaged in protected First Amendment
`
`activity by filing lawsuits and grievances, so the Court focuses on the second and third elements.
`
`1. Deprivation Likely to Deter Future First Amendment Activity
`
`Whether allegedly retaliatory conduct would "deter a person of ordinary firmness" from
`
`exercising his First Amendment rights is an objective test, Douglas v. Reeves, 964 F.3d 643, 646
`
`(7th Cir. 2020), and the standard "does not hinge on the personal experience of the plaintiff,"
`
`Holleman v. Zatecky, 951 F.3d 873, 880 (7th Cir. 2020). The Defendants argue that denying Mr.
`
`Walker cleaning supplies, failing to process his grievances, and calling him a snitch are not
`
`deprivations likely to deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to participate in First
`
`Amendment activity.
`
`First, Officer Stevenson's denial of cleaning supplies when Mr. Walker's cell was
`
`contaminated with toilet water is the type of deprivation that would deter a person of ordinary
`
`firmness from participating in First Amendment activity. See Donelson v. Atchison, No. 14-CV-
`
`1311-SMY-RJD, 2017 WL 5999096, at *5 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 2017) (placing a prisoner in a cell
`
`with an unpleasant odor, piles of trash, and a soiled mattress for several hours would dissuade a
`
`person of ordinary firmness).
`
`Next, Mr. Walker has designated evidence that Defendants Lieutenant Holcomb, Officer
`
`Stevenson, and Officer Neff called him a snitch, leading to harassment and threats. A reasonable
`
`jury could find that these actions would deter a person of ordinary firmness from filing lawsuits or
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00559-JRS-MKK Document 75 Filed 03/19/25 Page 16 of 18 PageID #:
`3456
`
`grievances. See Childs v. Rudolph, No. 22-CV-572-JDP, 2024 WL 639859, at *4 (W.D. Wis. Feb.
`
`15, 2024); Owens v. Ebers, No. 14-CV-1421-SCW, 2017 WL 4298125, at *4 (S.D. Ill. Sept. 28,
`
`2017) (calling an inmate a "snitch" in front of other officers could support a retaliation claim).
`
`Finally, however, failing to process grievances is not the type of activity that would deter
`
`a person of ordinary firmness. See Smith v. Butler, No. 17-CV-189-MJR, 2017 WL 1318270, at
`
`*7 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2017). Defendants Wellington and Crichfield11 were only involved in the
`
`grievance process and are therefore entitled to summary judgment on this claim.
`
`2. Motivating Factor
`
`"The motivating factor [element] amounts to a causal link between the activity and the
`
`unlawful re