” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (per curiam). Accordingly, pro se complaints are liberally construed. See Wilson v. Civil Town of Clayton, Ind., 839 F.2d 375, 378 (7th Cir.1988). In order to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Supreme Court requires only two elements: “First, the plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of the right acted under color of state ... law.” Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640, 100 S.Ct. 1920, 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980). These elements may be put forth in a “short and plain statement of the claim showin ealth under Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993). Id. at 35, 113 S.Ct. 2475 (<HOLDING>); Oliver v. Deen, 77 F.3d 156, 159-60 (7th
holding that an inmate stated a cause of action under the eighth amendment by alleging that prison officials had with deliberate indifference exposed him to levels of ets that posed an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his future health holding that prison officials will not be found liable under the eighth amendment unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health holding that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need establishes an eighth amendment violation holding that in order to state a violation of the eighth amendment an inmate must demonstrate that prison officials showed deliberate indifference to serious medical needs holding that the eighth amendment protects prisoners only from deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs