Gee v. Allen et al.

No. 1:25-cv-01594-JPH-KMB (S.D. Ind. Feb. 20, 2026) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division · February 20, 2026 · No. No. 1:25-cv-01594-JPH-KMB

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana screens Damon T. Gee's prisoner complaint concerning allegedly contaminated water at Pendleton Correctional Facility. The court allows an injunctive-relief claim under the Safe Drinking Water Act against the warden in his official capacity and Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims against all defendants. The court dismisses Clean Water Act claims, damages claims under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and deliberate-indifference medical-care claims, and directs service of process.

Holdings

  1. The Clean Water Act claims were dismissed because the complaint did not allege a discharge of pollutants into navigable waters by the defendants.
  2. The Safe Drinking Water Act claim for injunctive relief could proceed against Warden Allen in his official capacity, but claims for damages under the Act against any defendant were dismissed.
  3. The deliberate-indifference claims based on denial of medical care were dismissed because Gee did not identify how any particular defendant was personally involved in depriving him of needed medical care.
  4. The Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims could proceed against all defendants based on allegations that each participated in the facility's water risk management team and failed to take adequate action to provide safe drinking and shower water.
  5. Because Gee expressly identified the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Eighth Amendment as his legal theories, the court was not required to analyze whether the allegations stated a claim under a different theory.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the complaint stated a claim under the Clean Water Act.
  2. Whether the complaint stated a Safe Drinking Water Act claim for injunctive relief and damages.
  3. Whether the complaint stated a deliberate-indifference claim based on denial of medical care.
  4. Whether the complaint stated Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims against the defendants.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (12)

  • Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 993 (7th Cir. 2020)(followed)
  • Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
  • Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017)(followed)
  • Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. 651, 660 (2023)(followed)
  • Larry v. Goldsmith, 799 F. App'x 413, 416 (7th Cir. 2019)(followed)
  • Clancy v. Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, 559 F.3d 595, 606-07 (7th Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Hootstein v. Amherst-Pelham Regional School Committee, 361 F. Supp. 3d 94, 105 (D. Mass. 2019)(followed)
  • Mays v. City of Flint, Michigan, 871 F.3d 437, 450 (6th Cir. 2017)(followed)
  • Phan v. Aurora City Water Utility Administration, No. 21-CV-00960-GPG, 2021 WL 5629068, at *1 (D. Colo. Apr. 13, 2021)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 12.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…