Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-14-01675/USCOURTS-ca7-14-01675-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted January 6, 2015*

Decided January 23, 2015

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 14-1675

JOHNNY M. GIBSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JOHN PAQUIN, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of 

Wisconsin.

No. 13-C-615

William C. Griesbach,

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

Johnny Gibson, a Wisconsin inmate, appeals the dismissal of his civil-rights suit 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against personnel of the Racine Correctional Institution who 

“made [him] and other inmates take cold showers” at least four times (but possibly 

multiple times weekly) over six months. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint 

for failure to state a claim and alternatively sought summary judgment based on 

* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is 

unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

 

Case: 14-1675 Document: 16 Filed: 01/23/2015 Pages: 3
No. 14-1675 Page 2

Gibson’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court granted both 

motions. Because Gibson does not allege that the showers caused any serious harm, he 

does not state a claim for relief, so we affirm. 

We accept the allegations in Gibson’s complaint as true. See Turley v. Rednour, 729 

F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). Gibson was placed in segregation at Racine on January 5, 

2012. Prisoners in segregation receive three showers per week. On January 7 a guard 

escorted Gibson to the showers. When Gibson turned on the water, it was “cold.” He 

asked guards to warm up the water, and they replied that they couldn’t. Gibson details 

three similar incidents in January. He asserts generally that the cold showers continued

until July, when he was transferred to another facility. 

Gibson made several attempts to complain about the showers. He submitted his 

first complaint in May 2012, but it was returned to him with instructions to ask the 

security director for an interview and resubmit the complaint in fourteen days. Gibson 

took both steps, but the security director denied him an interview, stating that “the 

temperature is fine and water pressure is acceptable.” The resubmitted complaint was 

dismissed after an investigation revealed that the water was at a safe, stable temperature 

of 100 degrees. Gibson later sued in federal district court.

The defendants raised two defenses by motion. First they moved to dismiss 

Gibson’s complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing that Gibson did not allege a 

physical injury and that cold showers alone, while unpleasant, did not violate the Eighth 

Amendment. Second, they moved for summary judgment, contending that Gibson failed 

to exhaust his administrative remedies by not filing an administrative appeal of the 

resubmitted complaint. They furnished an affidavit from a complaint examiner who 

asserted that, if Gibson had filed an internal appeal, it would be recorded in the prison’s 

complaint tracking system, but the tracking system has no record of any appeal. Gibson 

replied by affidavit that he did in fact file an administrative appeal. 

The district court granted both motions. First, it ruled that Gibson failed to 

exhaust his administrative remedies because he did not appeal his resubmitted 

complaint. The district court alternatively ruled that Gibson failed to state a claim for 

relief. It reasoned that, because cold showers are part of the “routine discomfort” of 

prison life, were not coupled with any other harsh conditions, and were not 

accompanied by any physical injury, the complaint did not state an Eighth Amendment 

violation. 

Case: 14-1675 Document: 16 Filed: 01/23/2015 Pages: 3
No. 14-1675 Page 3

On appeal Gibson contends that the district court improperly granted summary 

judgment on the exhaustion defense. He maintains that his “affidavit squarely 

contradicts the defendants’ story concerning the exhaustion of administrative remedies” 

because his sworn assertions imply that prison officials mishandled or lost his appeal. As 

a result, Gibson continues, his administrative remedies were unavailable, thereby

excusing his failure to exhaust. See Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809–11 (7th Cir. 2006).

Thus, Gibson concludes, the court needed to conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve 

disputed factual issues about exhaustion. See Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739, 742 (7th Cir. 

2008). 

We may assume without deciding that the district court should not have granted 

summary judgment on the disputed exhaustion issue without conducting a Pavey

hearing; nonetheless, it properly dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim. 

Harm from prolonged exposure to severe cold in a prison may state an Eighth 

Amendment violation. See Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 640, 642 (7th Cir. 1997); Antonelli v. 

Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1431–33 (7th Cir. 1996). But in this case Gibson cannot recover 

compensatory damages for the cold showers because he alleges no physical injury from 

them. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e); see Cassidy v. Ind. Dep’t of Corr., 199 F.3d 374, 375–76 (7th Cir. 

2000); Zehner v. Trigg, 133 F.3d 459, 461 (7th Cir. 1997). More fundamentally, recovery of 

any type of damages is unavailable to Gibson. For even when we apply generous 

pleading standards for pro se litigants, Gibson has not alleged that the water’s 

temperature threatened to harm him seriously and that the prison staff knew of the 

harm. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833–43 (1994). In particular, Gibson does not 

allege that his four episodes of cold showers (or any other episodes that his allegations 

might imply) were so severe or prolonged that they interfered with normal daytime 

activities or sleep. Compare Mays v. Springborn, 575 F.3d 643, 648–49 (7th Cir. 2009) (ruling 

that short exposures to painful or numbing winter temperatures did not violate Eighth 

Amendment), with Dixon, 114 F.3d at 642 (ruling that Eighth Amendment claim may 

arise from months-long exposure to below-40-degree temperatures that literally froze 

cell walls, disabled inmate from using hands, and made sleep difficult). Without the 

complaint asserting any serious harm that the prison staff knew about, the district court 

properly dismissed it for failure to state an Eighth Amendment claim. As a result, 

Gibson has incurred one strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act for the dismissal 

and another strike for this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Kalinowski v. Bond, 358 F.3d 

978, 979 (7th Cir. 2004). 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 14-1675 Document: 16 Filed: 01/23/2015 Pages: 3