Gates v. Holliday et al
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION recommending 10 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend be denied. Objections to R&R due by 3/9/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 2/23/09. (hph)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS W E S T E R N DIVISION E R C I L K. GATES V. D O C HOLLIDAY, et al. CASE NO. 4:08CV04192 JMM/BD DEFENDANTS P L A IN T IF F
R E C O M M E N D E D DISPOSITION I. P r o c e d u r e for Filing Objections: T h e following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District C o u rt Judge James M. Moody. Any party may serve and file written objections to this re c o m m e n d a tio n . Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal b a sis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that f in d in g and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your o b je c tio n s must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later th a n eleven (11) days from the date you receive the Recommended Disposition. A copy w ill be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in w a iv e r of the right to appeal questions of fact. M a il your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to: C lerk , United States District Court E a ste rn District of Arkansas 6 0 0 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 L ittle Rock, AR 72201-3325
B a c k gro u n d: P lain tiff , a pretrial detainee at the Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility
(" P C R D F " ), brings a pro se Complaint (docket entry #2) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along w ith a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (#1). In his original Complaint, P la in tif f alleged that he received money to use for stamps and to make copies for legal f ilin g s . Because Plaintiff owed the county money, the received money was taken to pay P la in tif f 's debt. Plaintiff's request for stamps as an indigent inmate was then denied b e c a u s e Plaintiff had received money. As a result, Plaintiff alleges that his First A m e n d m e n t right to meaningful access to the courts was violated. Plaintiff sues D e f en d a n ts Holliday, Morgan, Smith, Paxon, Peters, and Martin ("County Defendants") f o r the alleged violation. Since filing his original Complaint, Plaintiff has filed two Amended Complaints (# 5 and #6) and a subsequent Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (#7). The C o u rt addressed the claims Plaintiff raised in those Complaints and his Motions to P r o c e ed In Forma Pauperis in a previous Recommended Disposition (#8). Plaintiff has n o w filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint (#10). The Court finds that Plaintiff's M o tio n (#10) should be DENIED.
D is c u s s io n : A. S tand ard
R u le 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that leave to amend a c o m p la in t "shall be freely given when justice so requires." The Eighth Circuit has sp ec ifica lly stated that under the liberal amendment policy of Rule 15 "a district court's d e n ial of leave to amend pleadings is appropriate only in those limited circumstances in w h ich undue delay, bad faith on the part of the moving party, futility of the amendment, o r unfair prejudice to the non-moving party can be demonstrated." Roberson v. Hayti P o lic e Dept., 241 F.3d 992, 995 (8th Cir. 2001). However, a district court's denial of a p la in tif f 's motion to amend has consistently been upheld when the amendment has been f u tile . See Runningbird v. Weber, 198 Fed. Appx. 576 (8th Cir. 2006) (unpublished) (per c u ria m ); Gray v. McQuilliams, 14 Fed.Appx. 726 (8th Cir. 2001) (unpublished) (per c u ria m ) ; and Holloway v Dobbs, 715 F.2d 390 (8th Cir. 1983). In Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, he seems to complain that: (1) Defendants have re ta lia te d against him; (2) his conditions of confinement violate his eighth amendment rig h ts; and (3) Defendants have violated ADC Policy. Plaintiff's allegations fail to state a n y actionable § 1983 claim. B. R e ta lia tio n
In his Motion to Amend, Plaintiff complains that on December 9, 2008, Deputy C o m ic , who is not a party to this action, acted in a hostile manner towards him in the law
lib rary when he requested that she make certain copies for him. Based upon Plaintiff's a lle g a tio n s , it appears that he filed a grievance against Deputy Comic following the D e c em b e r 9th incident. After Plaintiff filed his grievance, Plaintiff received a d is c ip lin a ry for making a false accusation against a staff member. On December 16, 2008, Plaintiff appeared before the disciplinary board. Board m e m b e r s Bally and Wilson (not parties to this action) found Plaintiff guilty of the alleged d is c ip lin a ry. As a result of the disciplinary conviction, Plaintiff was sentenced to five d a ys in lock up. Plaintiff states that he "consider[s] this treatment as a sign of retaliation d u e to me having 4 complaints by prisoners against this jail" (#10 at p.5). T o establish a prima facie case for retaliation, Plaintiff must show that: (1) he e x e rc is e d a constitutionally protected right; (2) prison officials disciplined him; and (3) h is exercise of a protected right was the motivation for the discipline. Meuir v. Greene C o u n ty Jail Employees, 487 F.3d 1115, 1119 (8th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff bears a heavy e v id e n tia ry burden to establish a prima facie case. Id. (citing Murphy v. Mo. Dept. of C o r r ., 769 F.2d 502, 503 n. 1 (8th Cir. 1985)). He cannot merely allege that an act was re ta lia to ry. Id. (citing Benson v. Cady, 761 F.2d 335, 342 (7th Cir. 1985)). H e re , Plaintiff has simply alleged that he "considers" his treatment a sign of re ta lia tio n . Accordingly, Plaintiff's claim appears to be speculative at best. See also Earnest v. Courtney, 64 F.3d 365, 367 (8th Cir. 1995) (retaliation claim is precluded if p u n is h m e n t is imposed for actual rule violation and defendants show "some evidence"
th a t inmate committed the alleged rule violation) and Hartsfield v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826, 8 3 1 (8th Cir. 2008) (stating that "a report from a correctional officer, even if disputed by th e inmate and supported by no other evidence, legally suffices as `some evidence' upon w h ic h to base a prison disciplinary violation, if the violation is found by an impartial d e c isio n maker"). Further, Plaintiff does not mention any of the individuals currently n a m e d as party Defendants in this lawsuit when describing the events giving rise to his re ta lia tio n claim. Rather, Plaintiff seems to allege that Deputies Crouch, Browley, and C o m ic are the individuals responsible for any alleged retaliation. Because these in d iv id u a ls and these allegations were not mentioned in any of Plaintiff's previous C o m p la in ts , the Court finds that Plaintiff's amendment would be futile, and that he sh o u ld not be permitted to raise this claim in the instant lawsuit.1 If Plaintiff seeks to p u rs u e this claim against these individuals, it should be done in a separate lawsuit. Plaintiff may not use this lawsuit as a vehicle to bring each and every claim that arises w h ile he is incarcerated. C. C o n d itio n s of Confinement
In order to establish that a prisoner's conditions of confinement violate the Eighth A m e n d m e n t, the prisoner must show (1) that the alleged deprivation is, "objectively,
The Court notes that Plaintiff mentions Deputy Comic in his Amended C o m p la in t filed December 23, 2008. However, in his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff s im p ly alleges that Deputy Comic "cut [his law library] hour short both times" (#7 at p.8). Plaintiff does not include any allegations regarding retaliation. 5
su ff icien tly serious," resulting "in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life's n e c es s itie s," and (2) that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to "an excessive ris k to inmate health or safety." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1 9 7 7 , 1980 (1994). Here, Plaintiff's allegations fall short of establishing such a claim. In his Motion to Amend, Plaintiff claims that while he was in "lock up" in D e c em b e r 2008, the air conditioning unit remained on, and his toilet stayed full for five d a ys . In addition, Plaintiff claims that he was provided unsanitized mats during the day. Such facts are insufficient to establish an eighth amendment claim. "[O]nly those d e p riv a tio n s denying `the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities' are sufficiently g ra v e to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation." Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U .S . 1, 9, 112 S.Ct. 995, 1000 (1992) (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298, 111 S .C t. 2321, 2324 (1991)). Further, Plaintiff has failed to allege that Defendants acted w ith "reckless disregard of a known risk" or that he suffered any injury as a result of any u n c o n s titu tio n a l conditions. Crow v. Montgomery, 403 F.3d 598, 602 (8th Cir. 2005).2 " B e c au s e a § 1983 action is a type of tort claim, general principles of tort law require that a plaintiff suffer some actual injury before he can receive compensation." Irving v.
With regard to Plaintiff's claim that Defendants provided him unsanitary mats w h ile housed in lock up, Plaintiff's claim also fails. Based upon Plaintiff's allegations, it a p p e ars that Plaintiff had the choice as to whether he should use the mats in question or g o without the mats. Either way, the Eighth Circuit has held that there is no absolute e ig h th amendment right to be placed in a cell with bedding. Williams v. Delo, 49 F.3d 4 4 2 , 446 (8th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, Plaintiff's claim fails. 6
D o r m ir e , 519 F.3d 441, 448 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 2 5 3 -5 5 , 98 S.Ct. 1042 (1978)). As a result, Plaintiff's claim fails and any amendment c o n ta in in g this claim would be futile. D. Violation of Prison Policy
In his Motion to Amend his Complaint, Plaintiff again complains that Defendants h a v e "broken the rules" by failing to maintain an adequate number of staff members at the P C R D F . Plaintiff's claim fails. There is no federal Constitutional liberty interest in h a v in g state officers follow state law or procedure. Kennedy v. Blankenship, 100 F.3d 6 4 0 , 643 (8th Cir. 1996) (citing Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 250, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 1 7 4 8 (1983)). Thus, even assuming that Defendants have violated any PCRDF rule or p o lic y, Plaintiff's claim fails as a matter of law. Accordingly, to allow such an a m e n d m e n t would be futile. IV . C o n c lu s io n : T h e Court hereby recommends that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (#10) be D E N IE D . DATED this 23rd day of February, 2009.
____________________________________ U N IT E D 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?