Stump v. Hicks et al

Filing 7

ORDER re 1 Complaint Referred (42:1983) filed by Kristopher Stump. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on October 25, 2017. (hnc)

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

KRISTOPHER STUMP
v.

PLAINTIFF
Civil No.: 2:17-CV-02179

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 unconstitutional conditions of confinement in the Logan County
Detention Center. (ECF No. 1, p. 4). Specifically, he alleges there is an ongoing lockdown which
requires inmates to eat and defecate in the same cell, there are no tables, no windows, and no
natural light. (Id.) He further alleges there are no windows on the doors, no ladders to climb up
and down from bunks, there is segregation of inmates, and misdemeanor inmates are housed with
felony inmates. (Id.) He further alleges the outside yard has no urinal or running water, and
inmates urinate in the corner of the yard. (Id.) He alleges there is no bench to sit on in the outside
yard, no pull-up bar for exercise, no dayroom, and inmates are not let out of their cells for 23 hours
at a time. (Id.) He alleges he saw another misdemeanor inmate be assaulted, so he does not feel
safe in the facility. (Id.)

1

Plaintiff proceeds against all Defendants in their official and personal capacities. (ECF
No. 1 at 5). Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (ECF No. 1 at 11).
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.
2

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
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 seeks compensation, but has provided no allegation
of actual injury suffered as a result of any of the alleged conditions at the Logan County Detention
Center. Plaintiff, therefore, failed to state a plausible conditions of confinement claim.
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Judgment will be entered accordingly.
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