Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 23, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Montez Artis v. David Gomez and Rob Jeffreys

District Court, N.D. Illinois

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:23-cv-01593

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (14)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (20.6K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MONTEZ ARTIS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 23 C 1593

)

DAVID GOMEZ and ROB )

JEFFREYS, )

)

Defendants. )

            MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER                             

MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge:

Montez Artis has sued David Gomez and Rob Jeffreys for violation of the Eighth 

Amendment based on unsanitary prison conditions at Stateville Correctional Center and
Artis's contraction of a bacterial stomach infection. Gomez and Jeffreys have moved for
summary judgment.

Based on Artis's request, the Court dismisses Jeffreys from the case. The Court
will accordingly only refer to Gomez throughout this opinion. The Court also limits its
analysis of the claims against Gomez to February 1, 2020 through December 8, 2021
because Artis has conceded this is the relevant period. For the reasons below, the
Court denies Gomez's motion for summary judgment.

Background

Artis resided at Stateville Correctional Center from July 18, 2012 through
December 8, 2021. He lived in D-house (also known as D-Unit) from February 1, 2020
through January 15, 2021. He lived in E-house and X-house from January 15, 2021
through October 13, 2021. He again lived in D-house from October 13, 2021 until he
was transferred to Pontiac Correctional Center on December 8, 2021. David Gomez
served as warden at Stateville from February 1, 2020 through February 19, 2022.

Artis testified during his deposition that the living conditions at Stateville were

dismal during the relevant period. Specifically, he testified that he observed sewage
flooding the kitchen area as well as birds and mice / rats in the kitchen and chow hall.

According to Artis, the kitchen and chow hall—including the tables and chairs—were
covered in feces from birds and rodents. Artis also stated that he observed bird feces
on the walls, walks, floors, and cells throughout Stateville, although it was rare that birds
would fly in individual cells. Artis further testified that cockroaches and other rodents
would leave feces and urine in his cell, and the cockroaches would regularly crawl on
his property, his bed, and his person. Artis also asserts in his complaint and response
that his housing unit had mold in the showers, cold temperatures from broken windows,
and the kitchen had unclean food carts. Finally, Artis asserts that the water at Stateville

was brown, smelled horrible, and contained unhealthy amounts of copper and lead.

Gomez has presented evidence, however, that prison officials regularly tested the
water. Although a few areas in the facility exceeded normal levels of copper in the
water, the kitchen and D-house did not have this issue.

Gomez has stated via an affidavit, and Artis testified, that Gomez was actively
involved in monitoring the grounds at Stateville throughout his time as warden. He often
performed walkthroughs of the prison. Although Gomez frequently walked the grounds,
he does not recall meeting or speaking with Artis. Artis, for his part, asserts that he
spoke with Gomez numerous times and informed him about the substandard living
conditions. Prison officials undertook some efforts that Gomez asserts addressed the
conditions at the prison. These include employing exterminators for pest control,
sanitizing various areas on a scheduled basis, and regularly testing the water.
In December 2020, Artis testified, he began experiencing stomach symptoms

including vomiting, diarrhea and bloody discharge. On December 23, 2020, Artis
received a stool test for Heliobacteria pylori (H. pylori), a bacterial infection. On
February 5, 2021, Artis tested positive for H. pylori. He was issued medication to abate
the infection. On March 20, 2021, Artis tested negative for H. pylori. Artis continued to
report stomach and bowel issues through September 2021. Artis was also previously
diagnosed with gastrointestinal reflux disease sometime in 2018 or 2019. He asserts
that he contracted H. pylori either through a communicative effect based on the totality
of the unsanitary conditions at Stateville or through the water.

Artis submitted a variety of grievances about the conditions at Stateville and his
infection. The prison did not act on any of these complaints. On March 9, 2023, Artis

filed this lawsuit. He filed an amended complaint—the operative complaint—on
September 5, 2023. Gomez has moved for summary judgment.

Discussion

Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). A genuine dispute of material fact exists if "the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The party moving for summary judgment bears
the burden of proving the absence of such a dispute. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 323 (1986). A court ruling on a motion for summary judgment construes all
facts and reasonable inferences the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, in this
case Artis. Chaib v. Geo Grp., Inc., 819 F.3d 337, 341 (7th Cir. 2016).

A. Procedural rules

As an initial matter, Gomez argues that Artis's response should be stricken 

because it was filed after the Court's December 17, 2025 deadline. As Gomez
recognizes, the certificate of service represents that Artis submitted the response on
December 17, 2025. Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' R. 56.1 Stmt. at 23. His response brief is also
dated December 16, 2025. Pl.'s Resp. at 15. The certificate notes that it was not
scanned by his facility until December 30, 2025. Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' R. 56.1 Stmt. at
23. The docket shows that the response to the defendants' motion and statement of
facts were received via PC scan on December 30, 2025, but were not entered until
January 5, 2026. Dkt. nos. 71, 72. The Court has no reason to doubt that the dates
Artis included in his responses to the defendants' motion and statement of facts are

incorrect. Instead, it is entirely possible—and in fact likely—that Artis provided his
documents to the staff at his facility on December 17, 2025, but staff did not send them
to the Clerk's office until after the Christmas holiday. This is also supported by the fact
that the documents were emailed to the Clerk's office on December 30, 2025 but were
not entered on the docket until after the New Year holiday. Artis is at fault for neither of
these delays. The Court will not strike his response.

Gomez also argues that portions of Artis's responses to his statement of facts are
procedurally deficient and improper under Local Rule 56.1. Specifically, Gomez takes
issue with the language in Artis's objections to several statements of fact and points out
that Artis cites exhibits that were not attached to his response to the motion or to
Gomez's statement of facts. The Court has the discretion, however, not to apply the
rule strictly. See Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 527 (7th
Cir. 2000); Dade v. Sherwin–Williams Co., 128 F.3d 1135, 1140 (7th Cir. 1997).

Because Artis is proceeding pro se and has made a genuine effort to comply with the
rules in his responsive submissions, the Court will disregard his technical
noncompliance. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) ("A document filed pro se
is to be liberally construed.") (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Court also notes
that, in addressing the motion, it relies only on factual contentions that are supported by
evidence in the record.

B. Merits

To withstand summary judgment on an Eighth Amendment claim based on

conditions of confinement in a prison, Artis must show a factual dispute regarding
whether: "(1) there is a deprivation that [was], from an objective standpoint, sufficiently

serious that it result[ed] in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life's
necessities, and (2) [] prison officials [were] deliberately indifferent to this state of
affairs." Gray v. Hardy, 826 F.3d 1000, 1005 (7th Cir. 2016). The Seventh Circuit has
"identified several situations that meet this demanding test, including lack of heat,
clothing, or sanitation." Id.

1. Unsanitary living conditions

"A prisoner challenging conditions of confinement must first show that the
conditions were sufficiently serious as an objective matter, meaning that they
denied the inmate the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities, creating an
excessive risk to the inmate's health and safety." Thomas v. Blackard, 2 F.4th 716, 719 (7th Cir. 2021).

Artis contends that he was forced to live in filth at Stateville. His claims are
primarily based on three categories of unsanitary conditions: (1) bird, rodent and insect

feces throughout the facility; (2) sewage in the kitchen; and (3) water contamination,
shower mold, and vent cleanliness. Gomez does not meaningfully contest that these
conditions existed. He instead argues that Artis's claims must be limited to the
conditions in the D-house because that is where Artis was housed for most of the
relevant period. Gomez also briefly argues that Artis has not shown a genuine factual
dispute regarding whether systemic conditions existed in the kitchen because Artis did
not work in the kitchen. These arguments lack merit.

Artis testified that there were "dozens of birds flying around the inside [of] the cell
house" and that "[f]eces w[as] plastered everywhere on the floor, the walls, the doors,
the catwalk[.]" Defs.' Ex. 1, 63: 18-22. He also testified that the birds flew overhead

and sometimes defecated on him, but it was rare that the birds would fly inside the cells. Id. 63: 22-23, 64:1. Artis further testified that there were roaches in the cells that would
leave feces on the bed, floor, property boxes, and clothes. Id. 64:5-7. According to
Artis, mice and cockroach feces and urine were present in his cell and, in particular, in
his property box. Id. at 64: 5-11. Artis also testified that he personally witnessed the
kitchen serving lines "being inundated with sewage, spilling sewage through the serving
lines." Id. at 15: 9-11. He personally witnessed spiders, roaches, and mice in the
kitchen. Id. at 15:11-13. He also saw bird feces on the wall, seats and tables in the
chow hall. Id. at 14: 18-24.

Gomez argues that Artis could not know what happened in the kitchen because
he did not work there. But the Court agrees with Artis that he did not need to work in
the kitchen to observe the conditions in that area. Indeed, Artis testified that he
personally witnessed the conditions in the kitchen: "When you walk up to the serving

line to receive the tray . . . there's no closed door to the kitchen. So you could see
inside the kitchen from behind the serving line." Id. 16: 15-18. It is also common sense
that Artis could observe the condition of the chow hall from his personal experience
eating meals in that room.

The sanitation reports also support Artis's portrayal of the conditions at Stateville.

Every sanitation report in the record, from February 2020 through December 2021,
stated that there were "pest control issues reported" or "pest control issues ongoing" in
the serving line, dish room, and kitchen area. Defs.' Ex. 8 at 77, 194, 199, 260, 314,
371, 437, 496, 502, 564; Defs.' Ex. 9 at 7, 71, 138, 418, 658, 836, 888, 972, 1044. The
April 2020 report stated that, in the kitchen, the toilets and sinks needed repair, there

were no soap and paper towels, and there was evidence of insects / rodents. Defs.' Ex.
8 at 199. The July 2020 and August 2020 sanitation reports stated that the "inmate
toilet [was] flooded" in the kitchen. Id. at 371, 437. The sanitation reports also show
that there were insects and rodents in Artis's cell block and no soap or paper towels at
various times. Id. at 501, 569.

The Court concludes that a jury could reasonably infer that unsanitary living
conditions at Stateville denied Artis the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities
and created an excessive risk to his health.

2. Causation

Gomez next argues that Artis cannot show that his bacterial infection, H. pylori,
was caused by the living conditions at Stateville. Gomez is correct that Artis must show
some cognizable harm from the conditions of confinement. Gray, 826 F.3d at 1006.

But the Seventh Circuit has expressly rejected the contention that medical evidence of
direct causation is required to defeat summary judgment. Id. at 1007. In Gray v. Hardy,
the court explained that a pro se plaintiff's lack of an affidavit from a medical expert did
"not doom his pro se claim" at the summary judgment stage. Id. The plaintiff's reliance
on "the common-sense link" between the conditions in the prison and his asserted
ailments was sufficient. Id. The Court concludes a reasonable jury could infer a similar common-sense link
in this case. Artis was housed at Stateville from February 2020 through December
2021. He has presented evidence that—during that time—bird, rodent, and insect feces
were present in his cell, the kitchen, and the chow hall. He also testified, based on

personal knowledge, that sewage was often present in the kitchen area. Artis tested
positive for H. pylori in February 2021. The Court concludes that a jury could
reasonably infer a common-sense link between feces in Artis's cell where he slept, the
kitchen where his food was prepared, and the chow hall where he ate his meals and his
contraction of a bacterial stomach infection. A medical affidavit or other medical
documentation is not necessary at this stage.

Gomez points to Judge Seeger's recent decision in Foster v. Joliet Treatment
Center, No. 22 C 6716 (N.D. Ill. July 11, 2025). In that case, the plaintiff, Foster, failed
to file any response to the motion for summary judgment, thus offering no evidence to
rebut the defendants' arguments. Id. at 2. Critically, Foster did not point to any
evidence that he suffered an objectively serious medical condition. Id. The only
potential evidence on this point—discussed in the defendants' motion—was testimony
from Foster that his doctor told him that his skin irritation was caused by hard water and

chlorine present in Stateville's water. Id. at 5. The court determined that this statement
was hearsay and that skin irritation, without more, was not an objectively serious
medical condition. Id.

This case is different. Artis submitted a response offering arguments and
evidence in opposition to summary judgment. He also pointed to evidence that a variety
of unsanitary living conditions existed at Stateville, both in the form of his testimony and
prison reports. It is undisputed that Artis tested positive for H. pylori. He testified that,
because of this infection, he suffered vomiting, diarrhea and bloody discharge from
December 2020 through at least March 2021. It is also undisputed that Artis received
treatment based on his H. pylori diagnosis. The Court thus concludes that a jury could

reasonably find that an H. pylori infection is an objectively serious medical condition.

See Hayes v. Snyder, 546 F.3d 516, 522 (7th Cir. 2008) ("A serious medical condition is
one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so
obvious that even a lay person would perceive the need for a doctor's attention.").

Artis asserts several other unsanitary living conditions at Stateville that—
although substandard—do not permit a reasonable inference that the conditions caused
his injury. First, Artis's assertion that the water conditions at Stateville contributed to his
injury is not supported by the record. The water evaluation records show that the water
was regularly tested and met environmental requirements. Artis points to no evidence
that the water contained H. pylori bacteria. Second, Artis asserts that there were
broken windows, unclean vents, and cold temperatures throughout Stateville. There is
no common-sense link between these conditions and his H. pylori infection. Thus the
Court concludes that Artis has not shown the existence of a triable issue on these

additional conditions. See Thomas, 2 F.4th at 721.

3. Deliberate indifference

As his final hurdle to withstand summary judgment, Artis must show that a
genuine factual dispute exists regarding whether "prison officials acted with deliberate
indifference—that they knew of and disregarded this excessive risk of harm to the
inmate." Thomas, 2 F.4th at 720.

Gomez argues that Artis "fails to provide any evidence of" Gomez's "direct
personal knowledge of his purported injuries." Defs.' Mem. of L. at 6. But, to defeat
summary judgment, Artis must show that there is a triable issue of fact on whether
Gomez "kn[ew] of and disregard[ed] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety[.]"

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 832, 837 (1994). Artis is not required to show that Gomez
"acted or failed to act believing that harm actually would befall" Artis or with actual
knowledge of an injury. Id. at 842. "Evidence that the warden must have known about
the risk of physical or psychological harm resulting from the unsanitary conditions is
sufficient for a jury to find deliberate indifference." Gray, 826 F.3d at 1008 (emphasis
added). Thus whether Gomez had direct personal knowledge of the harm that Artis
ultimately suffered is not relevant to the Court's analysis.

Gomez similarly contends that he cannot be liable under section 1983 because
he was not privy to any medical records or complaints, and such complaints would be
referred to the healthcare unit. This argument is unpersuasive. Again, Artis is not
required to show that Gomez was aware of Artis's injury. Artis must instead show that
Gomez had actual knowledge that the conditions at Stateville created a serious risk of
harm and responded with deliberate indifference. See Gentry v. Duckworth, [65 F.3d

555, 561](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/703919/kenneth-e-gentry-v-jack-r-duckworth-superintendent-indiana-state/#561) (7th Cir. 1995) (a defendant may be personally liable for the deprivation of a
constitutional right if he knew "about the conduct and facilitate[d] it, approve[d] it,
condone[d] it, or turn[ed] a blind eye").

Gomez next argues that he was unaware of the problematic living conditions
because he delegated his signatory authority on grievances to an Assistant Warden of
Programs. Gomez's signature appears on each of Artis's grievances, followed by
initials. According to Gomez, these are the initials of the Assistant Warden of Programs
who handled the grievances at Gomez's direction. But, even without any knowledge of
an inmate grievance, "a jury [can] infer that the warden was aware of" unsanitary
conditions at the prison. Gray, 826 F.3d at 1008-09; see also Sanders v. Sheahan, [198

F.3d 626, 629](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/767020/dwayne-sanders-v-michael-sheahan/#629) (7th Cir. 1999) ("defendants such as the Sheriff and the Director of the
Jail can realistically be expected to know about or participate in creating systematic jail
conditions" such as "inadequate hygiene").

Furthermore, Gomez concedes he was a "present warden" who regularly walked
the Stateville grounds. Defs.' Mem. of L. at 11. On these walks, he would have
observed the alleged unsanitary conditions throughout the prison, including in inmate
cells and the kitchen. Artis also testified that he spoke to Gomez numerous times about
the conditions at issue. Gomez asserts that he does not recall these conversations.

This is a factual dispute for a jury to resolve. Based on this evidence, a jury could
reasonably infer that Gomez was aware of the unsanitary living conditions at Stateville
that form the basis of Artis's claim.

Moving on from his personal knowledge of the conditions, Gomez argues that he
cannot be held liable because the prison took reasonable steps to address the

conditions. Artis responds that these efforts were ineffective and disputes Gomez's
assertions that Stateville was regularly sanitized during COVID-19.

A comparison of Gray v. Hardy, supra, and Thomas v. Blackard, supra, is helpful
on this point. In Gray, the defendant argued that the prison took reasonable steps to
address the unsanitary conditions through its bird removal program and monthly
exterminatory visits. Gray, 826 F.3d at 1009. The plaintiff asserted that, based on his
personal experience, those efforts were ineffective. Id. The court concluded that
"[k]nowingly persisting in an approach that does not make a dent in the problem is
evidence from which a jury could infer deliberate indifference." Id. The court reached a different conclusion in Thomas. In that case, the plaintiff

complained of unsanitary conditions in his cell and a lack of hot water. Thomas, 2 F.4th
at 721. The record showed that prison officials promptly provided the plaintiff with a
new, unsoiled mattress, several cups of disinfecting solvent to clean the walls, and
gloves to remove dead flies from his bunk bed. Id. Prison officials also provided the
plaintiff with three hot showers per week while awaiting repair of the faucet in his cell. Id. On that record, the court found that no reasonable jury could conclude that the
officials had been deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's cell conditions. Id. The actions Gomez cites closely resemble those in Gray. Stateville regularly
employed a pest control extermination company and had an additional sanitization
schedule during COVID-19. The frequency and process used for this sanitization
schedule is unclear, but it appears that inspection reports were signed weekly. Gomez
also asserts—without any support in the record—that any overflow of sewage in the
inmate kitchen would have been "resolved immediately."1 Defs.' Mem. of L. at 13. But

Artis testified, based on his personal observation and experience, that these efforts
were ineffective. The sanitation reports also show that the pest control issues were
reported and ongoing for almost two years, at a minimum. As in Gray, a jury could
reasonably infer deliberate indifference from Gomez "[k]nowingly persisting in an
approach that [did] not make a dent in the problem[.]" Gray, 826 F.3d at 1009. The
Court concludes these genuine factual disputes preclude summary judgment.

C. Qualified immunity

Gomez asserts in the heading of his first argument that he should be dismissed
based on qualified immunity. Defs.' Mem. of L. at 4. Although the heading uses the
words "qualified immunity," the body of this section is an argument that Gomez was not

deliberately indifferent to the conditions at Stateville. And none of the cases Gomez

1 Gomez cites paragraph 10 (on page 5) of his statement of facts to support this
assertion. Paragraph 10, however, states: "Plaintiff also admitted that he had never
worked in the kitchen at Stateville, which was in a separate location from D House."

Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' R. 56.1 Stmt. at 5 ¶ 10. It does not provide any information about
resolving an overflow of sewage in the kitchen. The only potential support in Gomez's
statement of facts that the Court found for this statement was that "Stateville continued
to be thoroughly sanitized daily in 2020 and 2021, including in the showers and kitchen,
even while some of the facility's power washers were inoperable for some time." Pl.'s
Resp. to Defs.' R. 56.1 Stmt. at 20 ¶ 34. Artis disputes this statement. Id. The
underlying records cited by Gomez refer to the unit showers being power washed on a
weekly basis, any additional unit power washing project requests being handled on a
weekly basis, and an additional sanitizing / cleaning protocol schedule being conducted
throughout the facility on all three shifts. These records do not show—beyond
dispute—that an overflow of sewage in the kitchen would have been "resolved
immediately."

cites in support of this argument discuss qualified immunity. The Court therefore
concludes that Gomez has forfeited or waived any argument that qualified immunity
applies. See Rock Hemp Corp. v. Dunn, 51 F.4th 693, 704 (7th Cir. 2022) ("Seventh
Circuit precedent is clear that perfunctory and undeveloped arguments . . . are waived.")

(internal quotation marks omitted); Mahaffey v. Ramos, 588 F.3d 1142, 1146 (7th Cir.
2009) ("Perfunctory, undeveloped arguments without discussion or citation to pertinent
legal authority are waived").

Even if Gomez had not forfeited or waived the argument, he would not be entitled
to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. "Qualified immunity shields a
government official from suit for damages under § 1983 when [he] makes a decision
that, even if constitutionally deficient, reasonably misapprehends the law governing the
circumstances [he] confronted." Sabo v. Erickson, 128 F.4th 836, 843 (7th Cir. 2025)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Gomez offers no argument that the law that governs
Artis's claim that Gomez was deliberately indifferent to his unsanitary living conditions is

unclear, nor could he. Numerous previous decisions have addressed claims like the
claim Artis asserts in this case. See, e.g., Gray, 826 F.3d at 1006; Thomas, 2 F.4th at
721; Smith v. Godinez, No. 14 C 6744, 2023 WL 358792 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 23, 2023). And
the material facts underlying Artis's claim are genuinely disputed.

D. Future damages

Finally, Gomez argues that Artis's request for future damages should be stricken
because his infection has been resolved and he is no longer housed at Stateville. Artis
responds that he has stated a claim for future damages because he was infected with
H. pylori bacteria for life and the disease can lead to cancer. But Artis admitted that he
tested negative for H. pylori on March 20, 2021, and the infection was considered
"eradicated." Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.’ R. 56.1 Stmt. at 4 J 10. Additionally, Gomez is
correct that Artis is no longer housed at Stateville. Therefore, Artis is not entitled to
future damages.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Court denies Gomez's motion for summary
judgment [dkt. no. 63]. Based on Artis's request, the Court dismisses Jeffreys without
prejudice. The Court sets the case for a telephonic status hearing on March 23, 2026 at
8:45 a.m., using call-in number 650-479-3207, access code 2305-915-8729, to discuss
the length of trial and set a trial date and also to discuss the possibility of settlement.
Defense counsel is directed to make arrangements for plaintiff to participate by
telephone.
Date: February 23, 2026

                                           United States District Judge 

                                  15