Plaintiff inmate brought a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, alleging that he was deprived of his Eighth and First Amendment rights by being subjected to secondhand smoke in prison.  Several individual defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the complaint fails to allege facts against them as supervisors, which are sufficient to satisfy Fed R.Civ.P. 8(a).  The court concluded that Islam did allege facts sufficient to maintain a claim against defendant Connolly, but not against Fischer or Leclaire.

Plaintiff applied for pro bono counsel to represent him in his litigation.  That application was denied without prejudice at 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16488.  Having alleged that non-enforcement of a smoking ban in prison had risen to the level of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, Islam moved to incorporate his grievances  into his complaint.  The court ruled, at 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19796, that two of his grievances could be so incorporated into his complaint.

2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1464 (U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y.)