Barnes v. Trotter et al
Filing
7
OPINION AND ORDER dismissing this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 6/30/11. (ksc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
OASIA BARNES,
Plaintiff,
v.
DELRAY TROTTER, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO.: 3:11-CV-166-TLS
OPINION AND ORDER
Oasia Barnes, a prisoner who is proceeding pro se in this matter, filed a Complaint
alleging that the kitchen at the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City, Indiana, where his is
confined, failed a health department inspection. Based on the violations that were found during
that inspection, he brings this suit against six defendants seeking two million dollars.
DISCUSSION
Currently before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Complaint [ECF No. 1]. Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the
action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Courts apply the same
standard under § 1915A as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), which provides for the dismissal of a complaint, or any portion of a
complaint, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Lagerstrom v. Kingston,
463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). Under Rule 12(b)(6), a court construes a complaint in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff, accepts well-pleaded facts as true, and draws all inferences
in the plaintiff’s favor. Estate of Davis v. Wells Fargo Bank, 633 F.3d 529, 533 (7th Cir. 2011).
A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to “state a claim that is plausible on its face.”
Id. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129
S. Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Additionally, a document filed pro se is to be
liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
The Plaintiff alleges that the conditions in the kitchen at the Indiana State Prison violated
the standards set by the Indiana State Department of Health for safe food handling. This alone is
insufficient to state a federal claim because “[i]n order to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, . . . the plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right.”
Alvarado v. Litscher, 267 F.3d 648, 651 (7th Cir. 2001). As a convicted prisoner, Barnes may not
be subjected to conditions which violate the Eighth Amendment, but “not every deviation from
ideally safe conditions constitutes a violation of the constitution. The eighth amendment does not
constitutionalize the Indiana Fire Code. Nor does it require complete compliance with the
numerous OSHA regulations.” French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250, 1257 (7th Cir. 1985) (quotation
marks and citations omitted). Just as the Constitution does not constitutionalize the Indiana Fire
Code it also does not constitutionalize the Indiana Health Department regulations.
The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials ensure that inmates receive
adequate food, clothing, and shelter, Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994), but
conditions that merely cause inconveniences and discomfort or make confinement unpleasant do
2
not rise to the level of Constitutional violations. Adams v. Pate, 445 F.2d 105, 108-109 (7th Cir.
1971).
Conditions of confinement must be severe to support an Eighth Amendment
claim; “the prison officials’ act or omission must result in the denial of ‘the
minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.’” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 834 (1994) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)). See
also, Lunsford v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1574, 1579 (7th Cir. 1994) (the Eighth
Amendment only protects prisoners from conditions that “exceed contemporary
bounds of decency of a mature, civilized society.”); Jackson v. Duckworth, 955
F.2d 21, 22 (7th Cir. 1992).
Morissette v. Peters, 45 F.3d 1119, 1123 (7th Cir. 1995) (parallel citations omitted). “An
objectively sufficiently serious risk, is one that society considers so grave that to expose any
unwilling individual to it would offend contemporary standards of decency.” Christopher v.
Buss, 384 F.3d 879, 882 (7th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
The Plaintiff indicates that the Department of Health found a number of violations. Two
ceiling tiles were missing in the west dining room and there was evidence of water damage. In
the production kitchen, water was leaking from the steam kettles and a metal cover was missing
from one of the gear mechanisms. Chemicals were stored outside of secured cabinets. Three
containers of macaroni were not covered. In the offender restroom, only one urinal and one sink
worked and the sink drained slowly. Chemical usage was not accurately recorded on log sheets.
Inmate employees started work in the production kitchen and serving line without being
screened for diseases or washing their hands. Workers wiped their gloved hands on wiping
clothes. Steam tables were inoperable. Time and temperature control records were not properly
maintained. Some food was served outside of the proper temperature range. Serving trays were
chipped. The dishwasher had lime deposits on the inside. The hand sinks in the bakery and on
the east serving line did not work. The sanitizing solution in the bucket on the west serving line
3
was not clean. Washed, wet trays were put out for use before they were fully air dried. The
bakery stock room had trash and food debris on the floor. A wall had dirt and dust on it.
None of those health code violations constitute a risk “so grave that to expose any
unwilling individual to it would offend contemporary standards of decency.” Christopher, 384
F.3d at 882. Many are risks that free citizens take every day in their own kitchens as well as in
cafeterias and restaurants. See Marion County Health Department,
http://hhcwebfood.mchd.com/HHCWebFood/FoodMap/Search.aspx (last visited June 27, 2011)
(listing food service inspections and violations in Marion County). Thus, this “is the type of risk
many encounter voluntarily . . . and exposure to it in moderate levels is a common fact of
contemporary life and cannot, under contemporary standards, be considered cruel and unusual.”
Christopher, 384 F.3d at 882 (quotation marks omitted); see also Reynolds v. Powell, 370 F.3d
1028, 1031 (10th Cir. 2004) (holding that exposure to hazards faced daily by members of the
public at large do not constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment.)
For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
SO ORDERED on June 30, 2011.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
4
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?