*

The Appellees were not served with process in the district court and did not file a

brief or otherwise participate in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the

record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary.  Accordingly, the appeal is

submitted on the brief and the record.  See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 11, 2008*

Decided December 16, 2008

Before

JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 08‐1898

ANTHONY WHEELER,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

ROGER WALKER, et al.,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 08 C 1637

Charles P. Kocoras,

Judge.

O R D E R

Illinois inmate Anthony Wheeler was transferred from a medium‐security unit in

Pinckneyville Prison to a maximum‐security unit at Stateville Prison.  He filed a complaint

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that the prison staff responsible for the cell during his first

two weeks at Stateville violated the Eighth Amendment by deliberately ignoring the

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08‐1898 Page 2

inhumane conditions of his incarceration and his medical needs.  He also alleged that he

was transferred without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The

district court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) because Wheeler did not

allege facts on which relief could be granted.  Wheeler appealed, and we affirm in part and

vacate and remand in part.   

Wheeler’s complaint alleged the following facts.  For the two weeks Wheeler was

confined in the maximum‐security unit at Stateville, he had only a thin blanket to protect

him from the frigid air that entered his unheated cell through a window with broken

latches.  Roaches crawled over him while he tried to sleep on a badly torn mattress; urine

and waste “encrusted” the sink and toilet; and trash, dirt, and debris covered the floors,

walls, and sink.  The stench of his and his cellmate’s waste wafted from a malfunctioning

toilet for intervals of up to five hours.  Wheeler suffered from sleep deprivation and flu‐like

symptoms, including chronic coughing, sneezing, and a runny nose, all of which he

attributed to his cell conditions.  The prison staff, however, ignored Wheeler’s requests for

medical attention, extra blankets, cleaning supplies, maintenance for the broken window,

and extermination of the roach infestation.          

The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.  First, the court

concluded that Wheeler’s challenge to his transfer to Stateville failed because a prisoner

does not have a liberty interest in avoiding a transfer to a new prison or a more restrictive

prison.  Next, the court concluded that Wheeler did not state an Eighth Amendment claim

regarding his conditions of confinement because his deprivations—spending two weeks in

an unheated cell with a malfunctioning toilet—though “disagreeable,” were neither

“severe” nor “protracted,” and he was provided with basic needs like adequate food,

clothing, shelter, protection, and medical care.

We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim.  Vill. of

DePue, Ill., v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 537 F.3d 775, 782 (7th Cir. 2008).  Wheeler’s complaint need

only describe conduct that, after we draw all possible inferences in his favor, plausibly

suggests that the defendants violated his constitutional rights.  See FED R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2),

Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1084 (7th Cir. 2008).  He need not provide any proof to

substantiate his allegations; he need only provide enough detail “to illuminate the nature of

the claim and allow the defendants to respond.”  George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 608 (7th Cir.

2008).  But he can plead himself out of court be alleging facts that undermine his claims.  See

Henderson v. Sheahan, 196 F.3d 839, 846 (7th Cir. 1999).     

On appeal, Wheeler first claims that the district court misapprehends the Fourteenth

Amendment, which prevents a transfer to a maximum‐security unit unless the prisoner

receives a hearing or notice that he has broken a prison rule.  But a prison’s decision to
No. 08‐1898 Page 3

transfer an inmate to more restrictive confinement does not implicate a liberty interest

protected by due process unless the transfer is for an “indefinite” period and affects the

prisoner’s parole eligibility.  See Townsend v. Fuchs, 522 F.3d 765, 772 (7th Cir. 2008).  By

alleging that he was confined in the maximum security for only two weeks, a fixed period,

Wheeler has shown that the transfer is not of indefinite duration and thus he has pleaded

himself out of court.  See Vincent v. City Colls. of Chicago, 485 F.3d 919, 924 (7th Cir. 2007).   

Wheeler next argues that the district court wrongly concluded that the cell

conditions he described in his complaint could not violate the Eighth Amendment.  To

plead an Eighth Amendment claim, Wheeler need allege only that prison officials

deliberately ignored conditions of confinement that failed to meet contemporary

requirements of minimal decency.  Townsend, 522 F.3d at 773; Delaney v. DeTella, 256 F.3d

679, 683 (7th Cir. 2001).  Minimal decency requires the prison to provide reasonably

adequate sanitation and protection from the cold.  See Gillis v. Litscher, 468 F.3d 488, 493 (7th

Cir. 2006); Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 1997).  

Wheeler’s Eighth Amendment allegations concerning conditions of confinement

state a claim.  He alleges that for two weeks prison guards, without explanation, ignored his

requests for basic cleaning supplies while he was exposed to a combination of a heavy

roach‐infestation, filth, and human waste.  See Vinning‐El v. Long, 482 F.3d 923, 923‐25 (7th

Cir. 2007) (reversing summary judgment when a prisoner was deprived of basic sanitation

items and a mattress while he was incarcerated for six days in a cell in which blood and

feces smeared the walls, water covered the floor, and the sink and toilet did not work);

Johnson v. Pelker, 891 F.2d 136, 139‐40 (7th Cir. 1989) (reversing summary judgment when a

prisoner’s requests for cleaning supplies were denied while he was incarcerated for three

days in a cell that was smeared with human defecation and was without running water).

Indeed another court has expressed specific concern about exposure to human waste for

periods as short as 36 hours.  See Despain v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965, 974 (10th Cir. 2001)

(“Exposure to human waste, like few other conditions of confinement, evokes both the

health concerns emphasized in Farmer [v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994),] and the more

general standards of dignity embodied in the Eighth Amendment.”).  Further, as for the

cold temperatures, Wheeler alleges that for two weeks the prison staff disregarded his

requests to provide anything more than a thin blanket while his unheated cell was exposed

to the frigid November air.  See, e.g., Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1429, 1433 (7th Cir.

1996) (holding that complaint alleging that prison officials deliberately failed to provide

blankets in “extremely cold indoor air” stated an Eighth Amendment claim); Murphy v.

Walker, 51 F.3d 714, 720‐21 (7th Cir. 1995) (holding that complaint alleging that prisoner

spent week and a half in cell without adequate heat, clothing, or bedding stated Eighth

Amendment claim).  
No. 08‐1898 Page 4

The district court, however, properly dismissed Wheeler’s claims relating to the

prison’s deliberate indifference toward his medical needs.  Lay prison officials violate the

Eighth Amendment if they deliberately ignore a patently serious medical need.  Johnson v.

Snyder, 444 F.3d 579, 584‐85 (7th Cir. 2006); Wynn v. Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 593 (7th Cir.

2001).  The symptoms that Wheeler describes—two weeks of coughing, sneezing, and a

runny nose—resemble a common cold, an illness that we have said does not raise a serious

medical need.  See, e.g., Guitierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1372 (7th Cir. 1997).

Accordingly, we VACATE and REMAND the district court’s ruling on Wheeler’s

claims that he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement and AFFIRM its

ruling on his claims that prison officials deliberately ignored his medical needs and

transferred him without due process.