10.

the windows as an intercom system by inmates throughout the gallery, equipment
breakdown or normal zoning temperature variances of not more than three degrees
in Unit H. (/d. at 4.)

The HVAC heating system was not functioning on January 17, 2000, but was
repaired by a contractor that same day. On January 18, 2000, the HVAC heating
system broke again. The system, however, was functioning by 8:00 p.m. that
same evening. (Pl.’s Ex. 2.)

Stateville maintains a temperature log to record the temperatures inside various
cells throughout Stateville. The temperature taken in Unit H from January 10,
2000 to March 30, 2000 shows temperature ranges from 64.6° to 80.6° degrees
Fahrenheit, with the majority of the readings ranging from 74° to 78° degrees
Fahrenheit. The readings from January 17-18, 2000, when the HVAC heating
system was broken, were excluded from this temperature range. (Defs.’ Ex. 2.)
During the winters of 1998 to 2000, Stateville hired an inmate to tape industrial
freezer plastic to cover the window of every cell to further insulate Stateville from
the cold. The taping process began at the first frost and was continually
maintained throughout the winter. (Scotti Tr. at 55.) The only cells that did not
receive the plastic insulation were those in which the inmate adamantly refused it.
(Ud. at 65.) The inmate responsible for taping up the plastic was also responsible
for removing debris (i.e. toilet paper) from the vents in the cells. This process was
intended to allow for better heat circulation. (/d. at 55.)

Stateville provides a state-issued blanket to every inmate and does not restrict the


10.

sufficiently severe so as to constitute a violation of Mr. Scotti’s Eighth
Amendment rights.

Additionally, the facts of this case do not lead to a finding of liability under
Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 738-40 (7" Cir. 2001) (holding that, in
order to be held liable under the Eighth Amendment, prison officials must be
aware of the substantial risk that an inmate might take his own life and must fail
to take reasonable steps to prevent such an act). In light of the medical evidence,
the temperature readings and Mr. Scotti’s testimony, we find that there was no
substantial risk to Mr. Scotti’s health and, further, that Defendants took
reasonable steps to prevent any injury to Mr. Scotti.

Assuming, arguendo, that the alleged deprivation was sufficiently severe, Mr.
Scotti must also show deliberate indifference on the part of Superintendent
Russell and Captain Hughes. Deliberate indifference is satisfied if Defendants
had actual knowledge of impending harm to Mr. Scotti and had the power to
protect him from the harm. Diggs v. Godinez, No. 944-C-7392, 1997 Westlaw
308847, at *3 (N.D. Ill. June 3, 1997). Mr. Scotti failed to prove deliberate
indifference because Defendants offered alternative means for prisoners to protect
themselves from the cold. See Del Raine v. Williford, 32 F.3d 1024, 1036 (7 Cir.
1994),

The steps taken by Superintendent Russell and Captain Hughes to insulate the
windows of the cells from the cold and to clean out the vents of stuffed paper

indicate their honest efforts to provide adequate living conditions. In addition,


13.

14.

15.

tablets and Tylenol when Mr. Scotti complained of back problems, difficulty
sleeping and headaches. (Scotti Tr. at 27.) Significantly, there is no indication
that Mr. Scotti ever sought treatment for any condition related to his alleged
excessively cold cell. (/d.)
A correctional counselor visited Mr. Scotti thirty-five times from January 30,
1998 to April 28, 1999. The counselor’s cumulative summary contains
complaints about cold food and confiscated property. There are also several
comments written by the counselor during January and February of 1999 that
indicate that Mr. Scotti made no requests or complaints at that time. There are no
references to the temperature or conditions of Mr. Scotti’s cell in the summary.
(Defs.’ Ex. 6.)
Mr. Scotti’s credibility as a witness was seriously undermined when he denied
ever having a state-issued wool blanket because his December 19, 1997 letter
stated that he “requested a[n] extra state blanket.” (PI.’s Ex. 9.)
On the other hand, the Court finds that defense witnesses, Superintendent
Vernette Russell and Captain Christopher Hughes, gave consistent, unimpeached
and credible testimony. (Scotti Tr. at 47-72.)

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Under the Eighth Amendment, prisoners are entitled to adequate shelter, including
the “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 833-834 (1994). A prisoner alleging unconstitutional conditions of

confinement must prove that the alleged violations were sufficiently severe, and


11.

12.

distribution of additional blankets upon request. (Jd. at 63; Pl.’s Hibbler Dep. at
9.)

On several occasions, Mr. Scotti complained that the heat in his cell was
inadequate. First, Mr. Scotti wrote four letters in 1997 and 1998 to
Superintendent Russell and Assistant Warden Jerome Springborn requesting that
he be moved to a cell that was not an end cell. (PI.’s Ex. 9-12.) Ina letter dated
December 19, 1997, Mr. Scotti wrote that he had “requested a[n] extra state
blanket.” (Pl.’s Ex. 9.) Second, he filed three grievances in December 1999,
stating that the temperature in his cell was inadequate. In these grievances, Mr.
Scotti requested that adequate heat be provided in the cells and that he be given an
extra blanket. (PI.’s Ex. 3-5.) Third, on January 10, 2000, Mr. Scotti filed an
emergency grievance that the temperature was “intolerable.” (PI.’s Ex. 14.)
Although his grievances were denied, Mr. Scotti was moved from an end cell to a
non-end cell on January 26, 2000, and efforts were made to clean the vents in his
cell to allow for a better flow of heat. (Pl.’s Ex. 5-6.)

A review of Mr. Scotti’s medical records at Stateville reveals that from June 1998
to April 2000, Mr. Scotti sought medical attention on sixteen occasions for
various ailments including several visits for an acne problem, a mental health
assessment and an injury to his finger. (Defs.’ Ex. 5.) On July 31, 1998, Mr.
Scotti sought medical assistance for flu-like symptoms, including vomiting and
headaches. (Jd.) In addition to his visits to Stateville’s medical facility, Mr.

Scotti was seen by a medical technician who came to his cell and gave him cold


Furthermore, during the two years at issue in this case, Mr. Scotti did not suffer
any illness as a result of the temperature of his cell. Indeed, his only flu-like
symptoms occurred in the summer, on July 31, 1998. Mr. Scotti, who had weekly
visits from a correctional counselor and who frequently saw a medical practitioner
for an acne problem, had many opportunities to voice any complaints resulting
from the temperature in his cell, but he did not choose to do so. (Pl.’s Ex. 5-6.)
The Court also finds that Stateville provided at least two alternative means of
protecting oneself from the cold. First, extra blankets were readily available upon
request, and inmates were permitted to have several blankets. (PI.’s Hibbler Dep.
at 9.) Although Mr. Scotti testified that he was not issued a standard wool
blanket, his testimony is questionable in light of a letter he wrote to the warden in
which he stated that he had “requested a{n] extra state blanket,” thus indicating
that he already had one state-issued blanket. (PI.’s Ex. 9.) Second, Stateville
supplemented its heating system with an effort to insulate every cell by taping
large sheets of industrial factor plastic in front of the cell window. In fact,
Stateville assigned one of its workers the permanent duty of distributing and
maintaining this additional form of insulation. (Scotti Tr. at 55.) The availability
of extra blankets and extra insulation from the cold indicates that there were
alternative means of warmth.

The Court’s review of the totality of the evidence leads it to conclude that the

temperature in Mr. Scotti’s cells during the two winters at issue was not


‘ .
Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Ruben Castillo Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 00 C 7968 DATE 11/30/2001
CASE Steven Scotti vs. Vernette Russell, et al.
TITLE

of the motion being presented.}

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (6) state briefly the nature

hereby dismissed with prejudice.

G1) =f [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.}

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

Cl) ob Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) Qa Brief in support of motion due

(3) im Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due___.

(4) im) Ruling/Hearing on ___set for____at

(5) im} Status hearing{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__set for___at

(6) o Pretrial conference{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor__— ss at__

(7) a Trialfset for/re-set for]on _____at

(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to____at

(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
COFRCP4(¢n) (General Rule2i CFRCP41 (a(t) O FRCP41(a)(2).

(io) [Other docket entry} | Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Judgment is entered in favor of

defendants Vernette Russell and Christopher Hughes and against plaintiff Steven Scotti. This case is

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required. umber of notios

Document
Number

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone. 0 EC 0

dated

3.2001

docketing deputy initiais

VY | Docketing to mail notices.
VY | Mail Ao 430 form Q

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

~

courtroom date maited notice

RO deputy’s
initials

Date/time received in 7
central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initials

Me



Stateville maintained the heating system and had it regularly examined. Thus,

Superintendent Russell and Captain Hughes did not demonstrate the necessary

deliberate indifference to prove an Eighth Amendment violation. See id.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated in the Court’s Conclusions of Law and Findings of Fact, the Clerk

of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Defendants Vernette Russell and Christopher
Hughes in this case. We are, however, compelled to note that efforts must continually be made
to improve the heating conditions at Stateville Correctional Center. It has been over twenty years
since the Godinez decision brought to light the questionable situation which exists at Stateville.
If state officials want to avoid further litigation on this issue, they should make continued efforts
to improve the heating system, window insulation and blanket distribution practices. Merely
taping plastic sheets over poorly insulated windows may not avoid liability in future cold weather

related cases.

ENTERED:

WA

Judge Rubeh Castillo
United States District Court

Dated: November 30, 2001

10


that the named prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's
health or safety. Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 640, 644 (7" Cir. 1997).

In order to prove that inadequate heating in a prison is sufficiently severe to
constitute an Eighth Amendment violation, the Court considers several factors
including: (1) the severity of the cold; (2) the duration of the extreme conditions;
(3) whether the prisoner has alternative means to protect himself from the cold;
(4) the adequacy of such alternatives; and (5) whether there are other
uncomfortable conditions in addition to the cold. Id.

Mr. Scotti did not prove that the alleged conditions were sufficiently severe to
constitute a violation of his Eighth Amendment right to adequate shelter. While
this Court does not dispute that the cell felt cold to Mr. Scotti, there is no evidence
to support the contention that the temperatures were intolerable or that they
caused health problems. Because of the inherent subjectivity involved in deciding
what is a comfortable temperature, this Court looks to objective criteria to
determine whether the cold in this case was severe.

The engineer’s survey of the heating system coupled with the temperature
readings from various cells in Unit H prove that the heating system at Stateville
was functioning adequately. (Defs.’ Ex. 1-2.) Regrettably, there was an absence
of heat for a period of approximately twenty-four hours on January 17-18, 2000.
This limited time, however, was not of sustained duration to cause sufficient

damages. (Pl.’s Ex. 2.)


galleries or hallways, with twelve or thirteen cells on each gallery. Gallery Two is
one of the few areas that contains single-person cells. (/d. at 53.) The two cells
located at the end of each gallery are known as “end-cells.” (/d. at. 11.) Mr.
Scotti has lived in Gallery Two since before 1998. (Jd. at 53.) During the winter
of 1998-1999, Mr. Scotti lived in cell 2B12, an end-cell, and during the winter of
1999-2000, Mr. Scotti lived in cells 2C9 and 2F5, neither of which are end-cells.
(d. at 12.)

Stateville’s policy on moving cells is that a request for a cell move within a
particular side of the building, even between units, is granted as long as there is an
available cell in the desired location and the inmate has not unreasonably abused
this privilege. (/d. at 53.) Although moving cells is freely permitted, it is not
common for an inmate residing in a single-person cell to request to move into a
shared cell because a single cell is typically more desirable. (Jd. 67-71.)

The temperature in each cell is controlled in two ways. First, each cell contains a
window leading directly to the outside. (Jd. at 13.) Second, the temperature in
Unit H is controlled by a forced-air HVAC heating system. On January 30, 1998,
Dean Thompson, a registered engineer for the State of Illinois, inspected the
HVAC system and found it to be in good condition, as it was capable of
maintaining a 68 degrees Fahrenheit in a typical cell when the outside air
temperature was 0 degrees Fahrenheit. (Defs.’ Ex. 1 at 2-3.) Mr. Thompson
noted that, while the HVAC system was functioning appropriately, the

temperature in the cells could be compromised by other factors, such as the use of


FINDINGS OF FACT
Plaintiff Steven Scotti is presently incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center in
Joliet, Illinois. Since June 1992, Mr. Scotti has resided in Unit H of Stateville, a
Protective Custody Unit. (Scotti Tr. at 9.) While at Stateville, Mr. Scotti has
earned an associate of arts degree from Lewis University and works as a teacher’s
aide earning $45 a month. (/d. at 31.)
Defendant Christopher Hughes is a correctional captain at Stateville, a position
that he has held since April 1995 when he was promoted from correctional officer.
Captain Hughes has worked at Stateville since 1986; however, he specifically
worked in Unit H in 1998 and 1999. As captain, Mr. Hughes was the head of
security in the Protective Custody Unit, which required him to oversee
approximately twelve officers in order to ensure that the daily operations ran
smoothly and that the inmates were protected properly. Ud. at 47-50.)
Defendant Vernette Russell is a caseworker supervisor for the Department of
Corrections. Ms. Russell has been employed with the Department of Corrections
since 1979 as a correctional counselor, correctional casework supervisor and
correctional superintendent. She served as the unit superintendent for the
Protective Custody Unit from mid-1998 to early-2000. As superintendent, Ms.
Russell oversaw all of the employees in Unit H, including counselors, captains,
correctional officers and medical technicians. (Jd. at 62.)
Unit H is a Protective Custody Unit that houses approximately five hundred

inmates. (Id. at 53.) The three levels of Unit H at Stateville each contain eight


ae |)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT beu 03 2001
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

STEVEN SCOTTI,

Plaintiff,
No. 00 C 7968
v.

Judge Ruben Castillo
VERNETTE RUSSELL

and CHRISTOPHER HUGHES,

Defendants.

wwe Swe SY

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Steven Scotti brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to obtain injunctive relief
and monetary damages against two officials at Stateville Correctional Center (“Stateville”),
claiming that the conditions of his confinement violated his Eighth Amendment right to adequate
shelter. This Court conducted a bench trial on October 29, 2001, and ruled from the bench that
Mr. Scotti failed to prove any facts establishing a violation of his Bighth Amendment rights.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52, the Court hereby enters the following
written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which are based upon consideration of all the
admissible evidence as well as this Court’s own assessment of the credibility of the trial
witnesses. To the extent, if any, that Findings of Fact, as stated, may be considered Conclusions
of Law, they shall be deemed Conclusions of Law. Similarly, to the extent that matters
expressed as Conclusions of Law may be considered Findings of Fact, they shall also be deemed

Findings of Fact.