United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
EMON V. HOLLINS, Plaintiff,
LT. WALLER, C.O. OLIG, C.O. SWINGEN, C.O. STANDISH, and J. MUENCHOW, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
D. PETERSON DISTRICT JUDGE.
Emon V. Hollins, appearing pro se, alleges that defendant
prison officials violated his rights by keeping him in an
unsanitary cell smelling strongly of feces and urine and
failing to take action to clean an adjacent cell in which a
prisoner had smeared waste. Defendants have filed a motion
for summary judgment, contending that Hollins could have
cleaned his cell himself, and that they appropriately
responded to the neighboring inmate's actions. I conclude
that there are genuine disputes of material facts about these
issues, so I will deny defendants' motion for summary
judgment regarding most of the defendants.
following facts are undisputed unless noted otherwise.
Plaintiff Emon V. Hollins is a prisoner housed at Waupun
Correctional Institution (WCI). At the times relevant to this
case, all of the defendants worked at WCI: Shane Waller was a
supervising officer. Todd Olig, Trevor Standish, and Zachary
Swingen were correctional officers. James Muenchow was an
institution complaint examiner.
occasion, inmates leave blood, feces, urine, food, or other
material in their cells, particularly in the segregation
cells at issue in this case. Defendants say that when an
inmate is removed from a cell, that cell is cleaned and
inspected before any other inmate is placed in the cell.
Cells are usually cleaned by inmate workers, typically
referred to as “swampers, ” and then inspected by
the security staff. Typically, cells are cleaned with
cleaning solutions, scrub pads, and mops. If those methods
are not enough, or if the cell contains fecal matter, the
cell is cleaned with a pressure washer. Hollins says that
prison staff often do not ensure that cells are cleaned when
inmates are switched.
are generally given the opportunity to clean their cells in
the segregation unit twice a week. Inmates are provided with
a mop, broom, toilet bowl cleaner, toilet brush, rag, and
scrub pad. A mop bucket containing hot water and a cleaning
solution is brought around to each cell. Defendants say that
if an inmate wants cleaning supplies outside of the
designated days, unit staff will provide the inmate with the
cleaning supplies they request unless the inmate presents a
safety threat to themselves or others. Hollins says that
staff usually refuse any off-schedule requests.
9, 2015, Hollins was placed in segregation cell A-222.
Hollins could smell feces as he walked down the range
hallway. Hollins says that after he was in his cell and his
handcuffs were removed, he told defendant Olig that his cell
smelled like urine and feces. Hollins noticed streaks of
brown particles on his cell's trap, which he believes was
feces. Defendants say that the streaks could have been rust.
asked to be placed in a different cell. He says that Olig
told him that the entire range had the odor problem, and that
Olig could not move Hollins to a new cell. Once Olig left,
Hollins sniffed the brown particles on his trap and he almost
gagged at the smell of the feces. He then began to develop a
headache. After inspecting his cell; Hollins discovered dried
urine and food particles on the walls and cell door. Olig
says that he does not remember Hollins complaining about his
the next few days, Hollins asked defendants Olig, Swingen,
and Standish to move him to a different cell, or give him
some cleaning supplies; they all refused. Swingen eventually
gave Hollins a rag and shampoo, and he told Hollins that he
could not give him anything else. The shampoo Swingen gave
Hollins was not effective in cleaning the cell or removing
the urine and feces smell. Hollins also says that he
“used the cleaning supplies [he] was given, but it did
not remedy the smell of feces and urine.” Dkt.
55, at 3, ¶ 25. By this I take Hollins to be
saying that the cleaning supplies provided twice weekly did
not work either. Hollins told Olig, Swingen, and Standish
that the supplies did not work, but they did not inspect the
cell, move him, or pressure wash the cell.
says that the conditions of his cell were exacerbated by the
actions of another inmate, Tyrone Carr who was housed in cell
A-223. Carr smeared feces on himself and in his cell and
urinated on his cell door. The parties dispute whether Carr
also urinated out of the trap. Carr also refused to shower or
change his clothes. Hollins says that defendants did nothing
to clean Carr or his cell for about 10 to 14 days. Defendants
say that at some point, they persuaded Carr to take a shower,
and that Carr's cell was cleaned with bleach. Hollins
says that after this, the hallway no longer smelled, but his
cell still did.
about July 14, 2015, Hollins submitted an
“Interview/Information Request” form stating that
the A-range smelled of feces and urine and that there was
feces on his trap. I take defendants to be saying that
defendant Waller would usually respond to this type of
request, but that he did not work the week that Hollins
submitted it. Waller did respond much later, on August 20,
stating that staff “are always looking to remedy any
sanitation issues” and that cells are cleaned before
they are occupied. Dkt. 49-2.
says that he was already aware of Hollins's complaint
because Hollins followed the information request with a
formal inmate grievance about the problem on July 23.
Defendant institution complaint examiner James Muenchow
contacted Waller and Waller told him that Hollins should
contact Waller with any requests or issues he had regarding
his cell conditions. Muenchow told Hollins to talk to Waller.
Other than the August 20 response by Waller, neither side
explains whether Hollins and Waller had any further
spent 46 days in cell A-222. Because of the odor, he suffered
dizziness and ...