Fields v. Fries et al

Filing 26

OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on/before 8/14/12 why this case should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28:1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff is CAUTIONED that if he fails to respond by deadline, this case is subject to dismissal w/o further notice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 7/10/12. (cc: pltf at Westville Corr Facility, Westville, IN)(jcp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
TERMAINE T. FIELDS, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
RAY CHAD,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 1:11-CV-343

OPINION AND ORDER
At the Pretrial Conference held on May 23, 2012, Termaine T. Fields, a pro se prisoner,
indicated that the sole basis for his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is that he was housed in a cell
for approximately 30 to 60 minutes with a toilet that leaked and caused some flooding on the
floor. (Docket # 25, Tr. at 5-6.) The Court had earlier read (apparently erroneously) Fields’
complaint to allege that he lived with these conditions for approximately 30 days, which formed
the basis for the Court’s determination that his complaint seemed to state a claim and thus passed
screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (See Docket # 6.)
While it may have been unpleasant or annoying, being housed in a cell with a faulty toilet
for under an hour would not give rise to an Eighth Amendment violation. See Hudson v.
McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1992) (stating that the Eighth Amendment is implicated only when a
prisoner is forced to endure deprivations of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities);
see also Delaney v. DeTella, 256 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir. 2001) (asserting that “the Constitution
does not require that prisons be comfortable”); Lunsford v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1574, 1580 (7th Cir.
1994) (noting that “temporary discomfort . . . hardly violates common notions of decency”);

Harris v. Fleming, 839 F.2d 1232, 1235 (7th Cir. 1988) (observing that prisoners cannot expect
the “amenities, conveniences, and services of a good hotel”).
Because the facts revealed by Fields at the May 23, 2012, hearing would not rise to the
level of an Eighth Amendment violation, he is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before
August 14, 2012, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A failure to show cause would result in his federal claim being
dismissed with prejudice, but any state claim contained in the complaint would be dismissed
without prejudice to his refiling it in a state court of competent jurisdiction.1 See Doe-2 v.
McLean County Unit Dist. No. 5 Bd. of Dirs., 593 F.3d 507, 513 (7th Cir. 2010) (“Ordinarily,
when a district court dismisses the federal claims conferring original jurisdiction prior to trial, it
relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. 1367(c).”).
Fields is CAUTIONED that if he fails to respond by the deadline, this case is subject to
dismissal without further notice.
SO ORDERED.
Entered this 10th day of July, 2012.
S/Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey
United States Magistrate Judge

1

Fields indicated at the hearing that he eventually slipped on the wet floor and sustained an injury. That
negligence claim, if one exists, would be under the tort laws of the State of Indiana and not cognizable under 42
U.S.C. § 1983.

2