Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Matthew F. Kennelly Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 523 DATE May 11, 2012

CASE TITLE Adolph Henry Love, Jr. (N-70991) vs. Thomas Dart, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff’s “Memorandum of Law” [#6] does not comply with the court’s 3/14/12 order, which directed him to

submit an amended complaint stating a valid civil rights claim. The order instructed Plaintiff on how to properly

attempt to state claims, and it warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply would result in dismissal. Given

Plaintiff’s failure to submit an acceptable amended complaint and because his pleadings reflect that he cannot

file such a complaint, the Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the case with prejudice.

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

PlaintiffAdolphHenryLove,Jr., an inmatenowincarcerated at ShawneeCorrectional Center, seeksto bring

this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit about conditions at Cook County Jail. Naming Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, Cook

County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, and Cook County Jail Sergeant Harris, Plaintiff alleged two sets of

claims: first, conditions at the jail were deplorable, and second, he was housed in a cell for 14 hours with a toilet

that would not flush and that contained standing feces and urine. The Court dismissed the complaint upon

determining that Plaintiff had not sufficiently stated valid § 1983 claims. The Court permitted Plaintiff to submit

an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies in the original complaint. Plaintiff has responded not with an

amended complaint as directed, but with a “Memorandum of Law in Support of Complaint.” Plaintiff’s failure to

follow the Court’s clear instructions warrants dismissal, as the Court warned Plaintiff. Additionally, even if the

Court construed Plaintiff’sMemorandumas an amended complaint, itis nowclear that Plaintiff cannot present valid

claims to proceed with this case. 

As to his first claim or set of claims, Plaintiff complained generally about conditions at the jail. He stated

that cells were either too hot or too cold; cells had either no hot water or no running water; the ventilation system

was extremely poor; Divisions 5 and 6 were infested with insects and rodents; the unsanitary and unfavorable

conditions created an atmosphere of anxietyandmental anguish; and jail officials, including Sheriff Dart andBoard

President Preckwinkle, turned a blind eye to these conditions. As noted in the Court’s prior order, assertions about

general jail conditions, without any indication regarding what conditions Plaintiff experienced himself, do not state

a claim upon which the Court can grant relief. A § 1983 claim must establish not only the deprivation of a

constitutional right by a state actor, “but also that the violation caused the plaintiffinjury or damages.” Roe v. Elyea

631 F.3d 843, 864 (7thCir. 2011). A litigant typicallymay not assert claims on behalf of others. Elk Grove Unified

School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 12 (2004) (a plaintiff lacks standing to seek relief for the constitutional

violations of another person, and the “adjudication of generalized grievances [is] more appropriately addressed in

the representative branches”). The Court therefore dismissed these claims but gave Plaintiff leave to submit an

amended complaint stating and clarifying what conditions he himself experienced.

Plaintiff’s Memorandum, like his complaint, again lists general conditions at the jail without stating how

he, himself, was affected. His Memorandum thus clarifies that he seeks to file this suit to address jail conditions

in general, as opposed to conditions that directly affected him. He states that upon entering the jail, he noticed

several conditions amounting to health code and constitutional violations: poor ventilation due to dust, trash, and

possibly asbestos in vents; some cells are too hot; other cells are too cold; some cells have no hot running water;

12C523 Adolph Henry Love, Jr. (N-70991) vs. Thomas Dart Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

other cells have no running water; and toilets often back up and overflow, preventing inmates from flushing. 

According to Plaintiff, some inmates remain in their cells for weeks with a non-flushing toilet. Showers in

Divisions 5 and 6 allegedly have slimy and scummy walls and standing water around clogged drains, causing

athlete’s foot, an infestation of flies and bugs, as well as mold and mildew. Plaintiff further asserts that the jail

needs to upgrade its control of insects and rodents to combat health problems of inmates. Plaintiff contends that

the “lack of official responsibility has resulted in an environment which aggravates existing health problems,

increasesthe demands oflimited health care services, and fostersthe outbreaks of disease.” ( Memorandumat 4-5.) 

It is now abundantly clear that Plaintiff seeks to raise general claims about the conditions at Cook County

Jail, as opposed to claims that are specific to him. With the exception of one of his claims (discussed below),

Plaintiff’s assertions concern general conditions applicable to numerous inmates. As previously noted, Plaintiff

cannot raise constitutional claims on behalf of others, and a federal suit is not the forum for his complaintsthat are

not specific to him. Id.; see also Roe v. Elyea 631 F.3d at 864.

With respect to the one claim that is specific to Plaintiff – his allegation that he was housed in a cell for 14

hours with a backed up toilet containing feces and urine – this condition, though unfortunate, does not rise to the

level of a federal constitutional violation. Inmates are constitutionally entitled to “minimal civilized measure of

life's necessities.” Gillis v. Litscher, 468 F.3d 488, 491 (7th Cir. 2006). Minimal decency requiresjails and prisons

to provide reasonably adequate sanitation. Id.; see also Williams v. Rodriguez, 509 F.3d 392, 401 (7th Cir. 2007)

(conditions of confinement claims of pretrial detainees are governed by the Fourteenth, as opposed to the Eighth,

Amendment, but cases addressing conditions of prison confinement may be applied to cases by pretrial detainees). 

When examining a conditions of confinement claim, a court considers the circumstances, nature, and

duration of the conditions. “While no single factor controls the outcome of these cases, the length of exposure to

the conditions is often of prime importance.” DeSpain v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965, 974-75 (7th Cir. 2001). In

DeSpain, the court considered thirty-six hours to be a short duration of time, requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate

“significant deprivations in order to state a successful conditions of confinement claim.” Id. The condition in

DeSpain (flooding, unavailability of toilet, and exposure to other inmates’ waste for 36 hours) was considered a

sufficientlysignificant condition. Id.;see alsoVinning-El v. Long, 482F.3d 923, 923-24 (7thCir.2007) (allegations

of confinement for six days in a cell with blood and feces smeared the walls, water covering the floor, and a sink

and toilet that did not work stated an unconstitutional condition); Johnson v. Pelker, 891 F.2d 136, 139-40 (7th

Cir.1989) (allegations of confinement for three daysin a cell with no running water, human waste smeared on walls,

and no cleaning supplies were sufficient to state a constitutional claim). Relatively short durations of an adverse

condition do not indicate a constitutional issue. Clark v. Spey, No. 01 C 9669, 2002 WL 31133198, at *2-3 (N.D.

Ill. Sept.26, 2002) (inmate held in cold cell with no toilet for several hours overnight failed to state a claim);

Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, Kan., 318 F.3d 1183, 1188 (10thCir. 2003) (pretrial detainee held for five hoursin cell

without a toilet did not amount to a constitutional violation).

Plaintiff’s assertion that he was kept for 14 hoursin a cell with a backed up toilet that did not work and that

contained standing feces and urine, though it describes an obviously unpleasant condition, does not reflect a

violation of hisfederal constitutional right to the “minimal civilized measure of life's necessities” that would create

a substantial risk to his health. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). 

Accordingly, because Plaintiff did not comply with the court’s prior order and because his pleadings

demonstrate clearly that the allegations he seeks to assert do not state valid § 1983 claims, the court dismisses this

case with prejudice. 

12C523 Adolph Henry Love, Jr. (N-70991) vs. Thomas Dart Page 2 of 2