Persall v. Arrington et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 1/3/14. (ASL)

FILED
2014 Jan-03 AM 09:14
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
)
)
Plaintiff ,
)
)
v.
)
)
LOYD ARRINGTON, JENNIFER HAWKINS )
AND KEN MULLINS,
)
)
Defendants.
)
CHRISTOPHER PERSALL,

2:12-CV-2230-AKK-PWG

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on October 23, 2013, recommending
that this action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Doc.
7. The plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation on November 6, 2013. Doc. 8
The plaintiff restates the claim made in his original complaint, that he fell in the same area
on more than one occasion and jail officials knew of the hazardous conditions, but were deliberately
indifferent and failed to take action. In his objection, the plaintiff also describes his physical
condition, which has a limiting effect on his ability to walk, and the condition of the shower area,
i.e. missing and broken tiles around the shower and exposed glue that is slippery when wet.
According to the plaintiff, his disability and the condition of the shower area have combined to cause
him to fall and suffer bruises to his foot on multiple occasions.
Although it is clear from the plaintiff’s allegations that the condition of the Blount County
Jail fails to meet the standards that plaintiff has for his own home, this fact alone is insufficient to
establish a constitutional violation. Rather, an extreme deprivation is required to succeed on a
conditions of confinement claim under the Eight Amendment. See Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d

1278, 1298 (11th Cir. 2004). Unfortunately for the plaintiff, he has not submitted any facts to
support a finding that the condition of the shower area rises to the level of a constitutional violation.
Therefore, the plaintiff’s complaint about the condition of the Blount County Jail is DISMISSED.
In his objections to the report and recommendation, the plaintiff also requests leave to amend
his complaint to add the claim that Sgt. Hawkins informed the plaintiff that she would file a work
order with the Maintenance Repair Administrator Ken Mullins regarding the plaintiff’s complaints
about the deteriorating condition of the jail. It is well settled that motions to amend are left to the
sound discretion of the trial judge. See, e. g., Gramegna v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 675, 678 (11th Cir.
1988); Espey v. Wainwright, 734 F.2d 748, 750 (11th Cir. 1984). While that discretion is tempered
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)’s proviso that “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires,” it is
clear that “there is no obligation to allow amendment if to do so would be futile.” Laborers Local
938 Joint Health and Welfare Trust v. B. R. Starnes Co., 827 F.2d 1454, 1456 (11th Cir. 1987)
(citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). This is precisely the case where, as here, the
plaintiff claims that Mullins, as maintenance supervisor, is responsible for violating his constitutional rights because Mullins presumably knew about the condition of the shower area for two years.
However, the only facts the plaintiff submitted to support a finding that Mullins knew of and was
deliberately indifferent to the shower hazard is an incident report the plaintiff submitted and on
which Sgt. Hawkins noted that the plaintiff informed her of the condition of the tile and “wanted a
report made.” Doc. 8, Ex. A. This report fails to establish that Mullins had the requisite notice.
Accordingly, because plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against
Mullins, his motion to amend his complaint to add additional facts to support his claim is due to be
DENIED.
2

Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including
the report and recommendation and the objections thereto, the Court is of the opinion that the
magistrate judge’s report is due to be and is hereby ADOPTED and the recommendation is
ACCEPTED. Accordingly, the complaint is due to be dismissed for failing to state a claim for
which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). A final judgment will be entered.
DONE this 3rd day of January, 2014.

________________________________
ABDUL K. KALLON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3