By: Derek Hawkins//June 28, 2016//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Marcos Gray v. Marcus Hardy
Case No.: 13-3413
Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and MANION and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Cruel & Unusual Punishment
Court prematurely dismissed appellants 8th amendment violation claims related to inhumane conditions of appellant prison cell.
“Gray’s grievance demonstrates the prison and warden’s knowledge of the conditions about which he is complaining. The response he received was signed by Warden Hardy. The grievance and response are thus sufficient to create a triable issue of fact on deliberate indifference. See Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 993 (7th Cir. 1996) (“an inmate’s letters to prison administrators may establish a basis for § 1983 liability” where “the communication, in its content and manner of transmission, gave the prison official sufficient notice to alert him or her to an excessive risk to inmate health or safety” (internal quotation marks omitted)). (We note that Warden Hardy does not rely on Vance v. Rumsfeld, 701 F.3d 193 (7th Cir. 2012) (en banc), which held, following Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), that knowledge of subordinates’ misconduct is not enough for liability. 701 F.3d at 204. Regardless, Gray alleges that Hardy not only knew about the problems but was personally responsible for changing prison policies so that they would be addressed.)”
Reversed and Remanded