Thomas v. Raven et al
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER: This case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 10/7/2014. (rmc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
DEMETRIUS D. THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ST. JOSEPH COUNTY JAIL, et al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:14 CV 1923
OPINION AND ORDER
Demetrius D. Thomas, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. (DE #2.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the 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. To survive dismissal, the complaint must state a claim for relief that is plausible
on its face. Bissessur v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599, 602-03 (7th Cir. 2009). “A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. at 603. Thus, the plaintiff “must do better than putting a few words on
paper that, in the hands of an imaginative reader, might suggest that something has
happened to her that might be redressed by the law.” Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d
400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010). Nevertheless, the court must bear in mind that “[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).
According to the complaint, Thomas is an inmate within the Indiana Department
of Corrections. He is presently incarcerated at the Westville Correctional Facility.
Thomas, an African-American, claims that he was racially harassed by Deputy Raven
while housed at the St. Joseph County Jail on July 16, 2014. On this day, Deputy Raven
was serving dinner to inmates. As procedure at the St. Joseph County Jail, inmates are
called individually to a receive their dinner and, once an individual receives his dinner,
an officer checks them off the list with an erasable marker. As Thomas walked up to
receive his dinner, he noticed that Deputy Raven had used the marker to draw “a man
with a ‘noose’ around his neck being hung from a tree” on a glass window facing
Thomas. (DE #2 at 3.) Thomas told Deputy Raven that his drawing was offensive.
Deputy Raven apologized and asked Thomas not to report the incident.
Thomas has brought the instant section 1983 lawsuit against Deputy Raven and
the St. Joseph County Jail, alleging Deputy Raven’s actions constitute racial harassment
and cruel and unusual punishment in violation of his federal constitutional rights. To
state claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: “(1) that defendants deprived
him of a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the defendants acted under color of
state law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006).
Under the Eighth Amendment, prisoners cannot be subjected to cruel and
unusual punishment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833-34 (1994). “An Eighth
2
Amendment claim based on the infliction of psychological pain on an inmate requires
(1) objectively, sufficiently serious misconduct, and, (2) subjectively, an intent to
wantonly inflict psychological pain for no legitimate purpose.” Snow v. List, No. 11-cv3411, 2014 WL 1515613 * 1 (C.D. Ill. April 17, 2014)(citing Calhoun v. DeTella, 319 F.3d
936, 939 (7th Cir. 2003)). The subjective element is satisfied here. Based on the
allegations, and giving Thomas all inferences to which he is entitled at this stage,
Deputy Raven acted as he did in an effort to humiliate and demean Thomas. The
question is whether Deputy Raven’s misconduct was objectively serious enough to
violate Eighth Amendment standards.
Standing alone, “[t]he use of derogatory language, while unprofessional and
deplorable,” is not serious enough to violate the Constitution. DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d
607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000). Likewise, in Dobbey v. Illinois Department of Corrections, the
plaintiff alleged a white prison guard hung a noose from the ceiling in plain view of
black inmates. 574 F.3d 443 (7th Cir. 2009). The guard then swatted at the noose to make
it swing back and forth, then sat down in a chair and “crossed his arms looking crazy
with evil eyes.” In analyzing whether the plaintiff stated a constitutional claim, the
court was “mindful of the ugly resonance of the noose, symbolic of the lynching of
blacks . . ..” Id. Nevertheless, the court affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that racial
harassment alone, with no realistic threat of harm, was not “cruel and unusual
punishment” under Eighth Amendment standards. Id. at 446.
3
Any harassment of a prisoner increases his punishment in a practical
sense, if we equate punishment to the infliction of disutility (and why
not?). But harassment, while regrettable, is not what comes to mind when
one thinks of “cruel and unusual” punishment. Nor does it inflict injury
comparable in gravity to failing to provide a prisoner with adequate
medical care or with reasonable protection against the violence of other
prisoners. The line between “mere” harassment and “cruel and unusual
punishment” is fuzzy, but we think the incident with the noose and the
“evil eyes” falls on the harassment side of the line because it was not a
credible threat to kill, or to inflict any other physical injury. The case falls
well short of Burton v. Livingston, 791 F.2d 97, 100-01 (8th Cir. 1986), where
a prisoner alleged that a guard pointed a gun at him, cocked it, called him
“nigger,” and repeatedly threatened to shoot him, or Irving v. Dormire,
supra, 519 F.3d at 449-50, where a prisoner alleged that a guard had
threatened to kill him, repeatedly offered a bounty to any prisoner who
would assault him, and gave a prisoner a razor blade with which to
assault him. See also Northington v. Jackson, supra, 973 F.2d at 1524.
Dobbey, 574 F.3d at 446.
Even giving Robinson the inferences to which he is entitled at this stage, the
conduct he describes does not fall over the line into an Eighth Amendment violation for
cruel and unusual punishment. Indeed, he alleges only that Deputy Raven drew one
very offensive picture, which Deputy Raven quickly apologized for. Robinson does not
allege that he understood the picture to be any sort of threat. Instead, he found the
picture to be racially offensive. Regardless, the test for what constitutes “sufficiently
serious conduct” is an objective one. There are no allegations that Deputy Raven made
any realistic threat of harm. While a hand-drawn picture depicting a man hanging by a
noose from a tree is deplorable, it, by itself, is only harassing. Id. Without more, Deputy
Raven’s drawing is not objectively serious enough to constitute an actionable Eighth
Amendment claim for cruel and unusual punishment.
4
For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 7, 2014
s/James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?