### In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

____________________ No. 16

- 1262
L AWRENCE H AYES , Plaintiff

- Appell ant ,

v.
G REG G S COTT , Defendant

- Appell ee

.

____________________ Appeal from t he United States District Court for the Central Distri ct of Illinois

. No. 3: 13

- cv
- 0 3195

— Colin S

. Bruce , Judge

.

____________________ S UBMITTED D ECEMBER 21, 2016

— D ECIDED J ANUARY 25, 2017

____________________
Before W OOD , Chief Judge , and P OSNER and F LAUM , Ci r cuit Judges

. P OSNER , Circuit Judge

. The Rushville Treatment and D etention Facility in Rushville, Illinois, houses persons a djudged to be sexually violent; often they are persons who have completed prison sentences for sexually violent acts but are considered too dangerous to be released into the general population; so they remain confined, though in a f acility (Rushville) that is not, at least technically, a prison. See,2 No. 16

- 1262

e.g., Hughes v. Scott , 816 F.3d 955 , 955

– 56 (7th Cir. 2016). The plai n tiff, a detainee at Rushville named Lawrence Hayes, sued Gregg Sco tt, Rushville’s acting director, claiming that Scott was deliberately indifferent to Hayes’s hydration needs during a five

- day “boil order” imposed by the City of Rus hville and applicable to the treatment and detention facility.
The boil order directed res idents of Rushville (including the detainees in the treatment and detention center) to boil tap water before drinking it. The detainees have sinks in their rooms and access to a microwave oven, so during the five days in which the boil order was in effect Hayes could boil the water from his sink in his microwave. He was also given an eight

- ounce carton of milk at each of his three daily meals. Yet he claims to have gone without any drinkable w ater for five days, during which time he felt dizzy and deh ydrate d. The district judge granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Scott. He ruled that that the boil order did not d eprive Hayes of adequate hydration, as he did not deny that micr o wave

- boiled water from his room’s tap was drinkable and milk available t o him at all meals. The unlimited micr owave

- boiled water and the servings of milk at each mealtime (not to mention beverages at the commissary) were reaso n able and adequate options for hydration. Nor is there any e vidence that Scott was deliberately indiff erent to the plight of the detainees during the boil order, since he not i fied them of the order and how to cope with it (by boi l ing water in their microwave ovens ) , and even ordered extra supp l ies of boiled water. Officials of detention facilities do not i ncur l i abi l ity if they “responded reasonably to [a] risk [of harm to a detainee’s health and safety] , even if the harm ultimatelyNo. 16

- 1262 3

was not averted.” Peate v. McCann , 294 F.3d 879, 882 (7th Cir. 2002)

. H ere it was averted. As for Hayes’s complaint about feel ing dizzy and deh ydrated during the boil order, he didn’t tell Scott about this, and there can’t be deliberate indifference if the indifferent person did not know what harm he was being indifferent to. The judgment of the district court is therefore

AFFIR MED

.