that the pleader is entitled to relief....” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). In reviewing the complaint on a motion to dismiss, “no more [is required] from plaintifff’s] allegations of intent than what would satisfy Rule 8’s notice pleading minimum and Rule 9(b)’s requirement that motive and intent be pleaded generally.” Triad Assoc., Inc. v. Robinson, 10 F.3d 492, 497 (7th Cir.1993). Alvarado’s complaint stated an Eighth Amendment claim when he alleged that because of the prison officials’ deliberate indifference, he was being exposed to levels of ETS which aggravated his chronic asthma, thereby endangering his existing health, a claim recognized as an Eighth Amendment violation twenty-five years ago in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). Id. at 104, 97 S.Ct. 285 (<HOLDING>). He also stated a valid claim as to his future
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 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 deliberate indifference to a serious medical need establishes an eighth amendment violation holding that the eighth amendment protects prisoners only from deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs holding that prisoner must allege acts or omissions evidencing deliberate indifference to serious medical needs