GEE v. ALLEN et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
DAMON T. GEE, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cv-01594-JPH-KMB
)
TRENT ALLEN Warden, 	)
CHARLIE FOX Deputy Warden, 	)
W. CALLAHAN Maintenance, 	)
JEREMY ALBERSON Maintenance, 	)
ANDY BAGIENSKI Safety Managment, 	)
CHRISTINA WRIGHT Accountant, 	)
MARIE LOYD Medical, 	)
A. WILSON Medical, 	)
V. STANLEY Maintenance, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
Plaintiff Damon Gee is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Pendleton
Correctional Facility ("Pendleton"). He filed this civil action alleging the presence
of 	several 	pollutants 	in 	the 	water 	at 	Pendleton 	in 	violation 	of 	the 	Eighth
Amendment and federal statutes. Because the plaintiff is a "prisoner," this Court
must 	screen 	the 	complaint 	before 	service 	on 	the 	defendants. 	28 	U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a), (c).
I. Screening Standard
When screening a complaint, the Court must dismiss any portion that is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). To
determine whether the complaint states a claim, the Court applies the same
Case 1:25-cv-01594-JPH-KMB Document 15 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
standard as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). See Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 993 (7th Cir. 2020).
Under that standard, a complaint must include "enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The
Court construes pro se complaints liberally and holds them to a "less stringent
standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers." Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720
(7th Cir. 2017).
II. The Complaint
The Court accepts Mr. Gee's factual allegations as true at the pleading
stage but not his legal conclusions. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 ("we must take all
of the factual allegations in the complaint as true," but "we 'are not bound to
accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation'") (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)). The complaint names as defendants (1) Warden
Trent 	Allen; 	(2) 	Deputy 	Warden 	Charlie 	Fox; 	(3) 	W. 	Callahan, 	facility
maintenance; (4) Jeremy Alberson, facility maintenance; (5) Andy Bagienski,
safety management; (6) Christina Wright, accountant; (7) Marie Loyd, medical
worker; (8) A. Wilson, medical worker; and (9) V. Stanley, facility maintenance.
Mr. Gee is seeking damages and injunctive relief to "make sure all cellhouses . .
. have access to clean filter drinking water and shower water . . . ." Dkt. 1 at 6.
Case 1:25-cv-01594-JPH-KMB Document 15 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Mr. Gee alleges that all Defendants "are part of the water risk management
plan facility directive-244." Id. at 3. He further states that the water at Pendleton
is 	"contaminated 	with 	Legionnaire's 	disease, 	H-pilori 	[sic], 	lead, 	and 	other
contaminants and toxins."1 Id. The water also "is brown and black at times and
has a very foul odor." Id. at 4. Although some cellhouses at Pendleton have access
to filtered drinking water, cellhouses J, G, and H do not. Mr. Gee has been
housed in G-house since April 2025. Also, staff and visitors at Pendleton are
advised not to drink the water there and staff members are provided with bottled
water to drink. Mr. Gee has become ill from having to drink the contaminated
water and has been denied medical treatment for those ailments. And, although
filters are placed on the showerheads, other prisoners take off the filters and
they are not replaced. Mr. Gee has submitted grievances about this issue, but
they have been ignored. Mr. Gee alleges that Defendants' conduct violates the
Clean Water Act ("CWA"), the Safe Drinking Water Act ("SDWA"), and the Eighth
Amendment.
III. Discussion of Claims
Although a plaintiff need not plead legal theories in a complaint, see Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a), Mr. Gee has identified the theories he wishes to use—violations
of the CWA, SDWA, and Eighth Amendment. Where a pro se litigant has
expressly stated the legal theory he wishes to pursue, the district court is not
required to analyze whether the allegations in the complaint might state a claim
1 Mr. Gee is not a participant in other lawsuits that have been filed regarding alleged
Legionnaire's contamination at Pendleton. See, e.g., Jackson et al. v. Holcomb et al., No.
1:21-cv-03120-JPH-KMB.
Case 1:25-cv-01594-JPH-KMB Document 15 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
under a different legal theory. See Larry v. Goldsmith, 799 F. App'x 413, 416 (7th
Cir. 2016) (citing Clancy v. Office of Foreign Assets Control of U.S. Dep't of
Treasury, 559 F.3d 595, 606-07 (7th Cir. 2009)). Thus, the court analyzes Mr.
Gee's claims only under the theories he has identified.
Applying 	the 	screening 	standard 	to 	the 	factual 	allegations 	in 	the
complaint, certain claims are dismissed while other claims shall proceed as
submitted.
First, regarding the CWA, it governs the "discharge" of pollutants into
"navigable waters." See Sackett v. Env't Prot. Agency, 598 U.S. 651, 660 (2023)
(citing 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1362(12)(A)). The allegations of the complaint do not
allege any such "discharge" by Defendants. Any CSW claims are dismissed.
Second, the SDWA was passed to establish uniform standards for public
water systems and to reduce contamination in drinking water. 67 Am. Jur. Proof
of Facts 3d 95 (Vinal, R. 2002) (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 300f et seq.). The SDWA gives
private persons authority to bring an enforcement action for injunctive relief,
Hootstein v. Amherst-Pelham Reg'l Sch. Comm., 361 F. Supp. 3d 94, 105 (D. Mass
2019), but "there is no private right of action for damages arising from a violation
of the SDWA." Mays v. City of Flint, Mich., 871 F.3d 437, 450 (6th Cir. 2017)
(citation omitted); see also Phan v. Aurora City Water Util. Admin., No. 21-CV-
00960-GPG, 2021 WL 5629068, at *1 (D. Colo. Apr. 13, 2021). Based on the
screening standard above and Mr. Gee's requests for injunctive relief to remedy
the contaminated water, his SDWA claims shall proceed only against Warden
Case 1:25-cv-01594-JPH-KMB Document 15 Filed 02/20/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Allen in his official capacity. Any claims for damages against any Defendant are
dismissed.
Third, 	to 	the 	extent 	Mr. 	Gee 	suggests 	Defendants 	were 	deliberately
indifferent to his need for medical care, he has not specified how any of them
were personally involved in depriving him of needed care. "[I]ndividual liability
under § 1983 . . . requires personal involvement in the alleged constitutional
deprivation." Colbert v. City of Chicago, 851 F.3d 649, 657 (7th Cir. 2017)
(internal 	quotation 	omitted). 	It 	is 	insufficient 	to 	plead 	that 	"one 	or 	more"
defendants deprived a plaintiff of his constitutional rights without connecting
specific defendants to illegal acts. See Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 580 (7th
Cir. 	2009). 	Any 	deliberate 	indifference 	claims 	based 	on 	medical 	care 	are
dismissed.
Finally, 	Eighth 	Amendment 	conditions 	of 	confinement 	claims 	shall
proceed against all Defendants based on Mr. Gee's allegations that each of them
has been part of a water risk management team at Pendleton and failed to take
adequate action to provide safe drinking and shower water in cellhouses J, G,
and H at Pendleton.
This summary of claims includes all of the viable claims identified by the
Court. 	All 	other 	claims 	have 	been 	dismissed. 	If 	the 	plaintiff 	believes 	that
additional claims were alleged in the complaint, but not identified by the Court,
he shall have through March 11, 2026, in which to file a motion to reconsider
the screening order.
Case 1:25-cv-01594-JPH-KMB Document 15 Filed 02/20/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
IV. Conclusion and Service of Process
The following claims are proceeding in this action: a claim for injunctive
relief under the SDWA against Warden Allen only and Eighth Amendment
conditions of confinement claims against all Defendants. All other claims have
been dismissed.
The clerk is directed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process
to defendants Trent Allen, Charlie Fox, W. Callahan, Jeremy Alberson, Andy
Bagienski, Christina Wright, Marie Loyd, A. Wilson, and V. Stanley in the
manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint filed on
August 11, 2025, dkt. [1], applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for
Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this
Order.
The Court judicially notes that although Mr. Gee identifies defendants
Loyd and Wilson as Indiana Department of Correction employees, Centurion
Health 	of 	Indiana 	contracts 	with 	the 	State 	to 	provide 	medical 	care 	at 	all
correctional facilities. The Court therefore will direct that a copy of this Order
and the process documents to be served on Centurion electronically. Centurion
is ORDERED to provide the full name and last known home address of any
defendant who does not waive service if they have such information. This
information shall be filed ex parte.
The clerk is directed to serve the Indiana Department of Correction and
Centurion employees electronically.
Case 1:25-cv-01594-JPH-KMB Document 15 Filed 02/20/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Nothing in this Order prohibits the filing of a proper motion pursuant to
Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED.
Distribution:
Electronic service to Indiana Department of Correction:
Trent Allen
Charlie Fox
W. Callahan
Jeremy Alberson
Andy Bagienski
Christina Wright
V. Stanley
(All at Pendleton Correctional Facility)
Electronic Service to Centurion
A. Wilson
Marie Loyd
DAMON T. GEE
981951
PENDLETON - CF
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
Date: 2/20/2026
Case 1:25-cv-01594-JPH-KMB Document 15 Filed 02/20/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>