Swanson v. Hicks et al

Filing 7

ORDER; Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on October 25, 2017. (mjm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION

HASKAL SWANSON
v.

PLAINTIFF
Civil No.: 2:17-CV-02178

SHERIFF BOYD DON HICKS, et. al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
The case is before the Court for preservice screening under the provisions of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court has the obligation to
screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on October 2, 2017. (ECF No. 1). He alleges his constitutional
rights are being violated by the unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the Logan County
Detention Center. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges the jail is on a “23 and 1 lockdown program,” and
inmates “eat w[h]ere we def[e]cate.” Plaintiff further alleges it is a hostile and unsanitary
environment, and that felons are housed with misdemeanor inmates. (ECF No. 1 at 4). Later in
his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges he has to sleep where he defecates, and there are no windows in
the yard. (ECF No. 1 at 6). Plaintiff included a newspaper article from an unidentified newspaper
noting that the jail has been repeatedly cited for violations of jail standards. (ECF No. 1, p. 12).
Plaintiff alleges his mental condition is deteriorating due to the hostile and unsanitary environment.
(ECF No. 1 at 4).
Plaintiff proceeds against all Defendants in their official capacities. (ECF No. 1 at 4).
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (ECF No. 1 at 7).
1

II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under the PLRA, the Court is obligated to screen the case prior to service of process being
issued. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are
frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or, (2) seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it
does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted
sufficient facts to state a claim, we hold ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded ... to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537,
541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). Even a pro se Plaintiff
must allege specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8
Cir. 1985).
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim of unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
“[W]hen the State takes a person into its custody and holds him there against his will, the
Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety
and general well-being.” County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (citation omitted).
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the imposition of cruel and
unusual punishment. U.S. Const. amend. VIII. Detention centers must provide pretrial detainees
with “reasonably adequate sanitation, personal hygiene, and laundry privileges . . . .” Beaulieu v.
Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1045 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Howard v. Adkison, 887 F.2d 134, 137
(8th Cir. 1989)). The Eighth Amendment also prohibits punishments that deprive inmates of the
2

minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities. Smith v. Copeland, 87 F.3d 265, 268 (8th Cir.
1996); see also Hall v. Dalton, 34 F.3d 648, 650 (8th Cir. 1994) (“[I]n this circuit, the standards
applied to Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims have been the same.”).
As is the case with all Eighth Amendment claims, a prisoner must suffer some actual injury
in order to receive compensation. This injury must be greater than de minimis. Irving v. Dormire,
519 F.3d 441, 448 (8th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff’s Complaint centers on a lockdown procedure in
which inmates must eat and sleep in their cells, and on the fact that felony inmates are housed with
misdemeanor inmates. Plaintiff seeks compensation, but has provided no allegation of actual
physical harm suffered as a result of any of the alleged conditions at the Logan County Detention
Center. Plaintiff’s vague allegation concerning the deterioration of his mental condition due to
unsanitary and hostile conditions, alone, does not suffice. “No Federal civil action may be brought
by a prisoner confined in jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury
suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury . . . .” 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(e);
see also Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8-9 & 16-17 (1992) (Blackmun, J., concurring) (de
minimis infliction of psychological pain is not actionable under the Eighth Amendment). Plaintiff,
therefore, failed to state a plausible conditions of confinement claim.
For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of October 2017.

/s/P. K. Holmes, III
P. K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

3