Damond Lamont McCauley Jr., an inmate at the Correctional Industrial Facility, filed suit against three prison officials after being housed twice in a restricted housing unit cell that had human waste on the walls and other unsanitary conditions. McCauley alleges he was first placed in the contaminated cell on June 16, 2025, where he remained for 30 days despite filing grievances and informing custody staff. During his confinement, he developed a rash and felt sick, requiring prescription skin cream that he did not receive for several months.
Judge Osman allowed McCauley's conditions-of-confinement claim to proceed against Lt. Murry, who allegedly failed to clean the cell despite being aware of the conditions. As Judge Osman explained, 'human waste has been considered particularly offensive so that courts have been especially cautious about condoning conditions that include an inmate's proximity to it.' The court noted that McCauley's claim was supported by precedent finding constitutional violations when inmates are left in cells 'teeming with human waste.'
The judge emphasized the severity of forcing an inmate to remain in such conditions, writing that Lt. Murry 'was aware that Mr. McCauley was placed in a feces- and sperm-covered cell on June 16, 2025, and failed to take appropriate action, resulting in McCauley remaining in the cell for 30 days.' The court found these allegations sufficient to meet the high bar for deliberate indifference claims, which require 'something approaching a total unconcern for the prisoner's welfare in the face of serious risks.'
McCauley's original complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, but Judge Osman gave him the opportunity to file an amended complaint under the court's mandatory screening requirements for prisoner litigation. The amended complaint added details about a second incident on October 24, 2025, when McCauley was again placed in an unclean cell with human waste, spiders, a leaking toilet, and a broken light. Staff allegedly told him to clean the cell himself before eventually moving him to different housing after he filed another grievance.
The court rejected McCauley's arguments against the other defendants, finding no basis for claims against Warden Gardener, who had no personal involvement in the alleged violations. Judge Osman also dismissed claims against Safety Hazard Manager Kmetz, noting that Kmetz 'requested Lt. Murry have it inspected and cleaned when he got McCauley's complaint that the cell was unreasonably dirty.' As the judge explained, 'McCauley has not pled that Kmetz demonstrated a total unconcern for his welfare.'
The ruling also rejected McCauley's separate claims about unsanitary laundry and showers, where inmates allegedly used the same towels to dry their bodies that were used to clean cells with chemicals. Judge Osman found that while McCauley suffered skin irritation and rashes, 'an ordinary rash is not an objectively serious medical condition from which inmates must be protected.' The court further noted that McCauley failed to allege Lt. Murry was aware that the laundry conditions might cause such health problems.
Judge Osman dismissed McCauley's attempted Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims entirely, finding no factual basis for constitutional violations under those provisions. The court noted that prisoners have limited Fourth Amendment rights and that McCauley had not described any loss of liberty or property that would support a due process claim. The ruling gives McCauley until May 6, 2026, to file a motion to reconsider if he believes the court overlooked any viable claims in his complaint.