of [Plaintiffs] claim is dubious.” Marcus, 278 Fed.Appx. at 351. In support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants argue that the symptoms of which Plaintiff complains are not “serious medical needs” that would give rise to an Eighth Amendment claim. However, courts have held that similar symptoms and illnesses arising from an inmate’s exposure to ETS can constitute a serious medical condition. See, e.g., Atkinson, 316 F.3d at 263, 260, 266-67 (finding that Plaintiff alleged a serious medical need based on nausea, inability to eat, headaches, chest pains, difficulty breathing, numbness in limbs, teary eyes, itching, burning skin, dizziness, sore throat, coughing and production of sputum, based on alleged exposure to ETS); Alvarado v. Litscher, 267 F.3d 648, 651 (7th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Weaver v. Clarke, 45 F.3d 1253, 1256 (8th
holding petitioners claim was factual in nature where he alleged the bia had failed to accord sufficient weight to the seriousness of his sons asthma holding that an eighth amendment plaintiff did not have to prove that he was actually injured by exposure to raw sewage only that such exposure posed a serious health risk holding that prisoner stated a claim for relief under the eighth amendment for his exposure to secondhand smoke even though he reported no illness holding that plaintiff stated eighth amendment claim where he alleged exposure to ets causing aggravation of chronic asthma 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