Walker v. Dinkins et al (INMATE2)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that the complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Objections to R&R due by 7/6/2009. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 6/23/2009. (cc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION _____________________________ L O R E N Z O E. WALKER, #164 121 P l a in tif f , v. C .O . T. DINKINS, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . _____________________________ * * * * * 2:09-CV-423-TMH (WO)
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE P l ain tif f , an inmate proceeding pro se, is currently confined at the Easterling C o rre c tio n a l Facility located in Clio, Alabama. In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, he complains a b o u t events which occurred on March 11, 2009 during his confinement at the Kilby C o rre c tio n a l Facility located in Mt. Meigs, Alabama. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that D ef en d an ts violated his constitutional rights by requiring him to "navigate" a flight of stairs s o a k e d with water and debris while he was handcuffed behind his back. Plaintiff asserts that D e f e n d a n ts conspired to cover up the incident by placing sandpaper on the stairs several days la te r . Named as defendants are Correctional Officers T. Dinkins and F. Fenn, Lieutenant M a r k Lowman, and Sergeant Richard Smith. Plaintiff seeks damages from the named
d e f e n d a n ts in their individual and official capacities. Upon consideration of the complaint, the court concludes that its dismissal prior to
serv ice of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1 D IS C U S S IO N P la in tif f files this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of his constitutional rig h ts as a result of having to contend with a flight of 20 stairs "soaked with water and d eb ris" while his hands were cuffed behind his back. Although housed on the ground floor, P la in tif f asserts that he was required to go upstairs to shower. Plaintiff makes no allegation th a t his brief ascent and descent of the water and debris-soaked stairs caused him any injury. (D o c . No. 1.) To the extent Plaintiff contends that having to maneuver up and down wet and littered stairs while handcuffed subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment, such claim is without m e rit. The Eighth Amendment proscribes those conditions of confinement which involve th e wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981). O n l y actions which deny inmates "the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities" are g ra v e enough to violate the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 347; see also Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U .S . 294 (1991); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837-839 (1994). In this case, Plaintiff's claims, at best, show only a lack of due care by prison officials w h i c h is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The protections of the Constitution "are just
A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint screened in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening procedure requires the court to dismiss a prisoner's civil action prior to service of process if it determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).
n o t triggered by lack of due care by prison officials." Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 3 4 8 (1986); Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 333 (1986); see also Whitley v. Albers, 475 U .S . at 319 (holding that a violation of the Eighth Amendment must involve "more than an o rdin ary lack of due care for the prisoner's . . . .safety"). B a se d on the foregoing, the court concludes that the actions about which Plaintiff c o m p la in s , without more, do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation and, therefore, p ro v id e no basis for relief in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff's complaint is, therefore, d u e to be dismissed pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). C O N C L U SIO N A c c o rd in g ly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that the c o m p la in t be DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B )( ii) . It is further ORDERED that on or before July 6, 2009 the parties shall file any objections to the R e c o m m e n d a tio n . Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or g e n e ra l objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that th is Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the
D is tric t Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from a tta c k in g on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the D is tric t Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.
W a in w r ig h t, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 3 3 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th Cir. 1981) (en b a n c ), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed d o w n prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
Done, this 23rd day of June 2009.
/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. WALLACE CAPEL, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?