Smith v. Breaton et al
Filing
8
OPINION AND ORDER The Court GRANTS Raymond Lee Smith III leave to proceed against Sgt. Breaton, Sgt. Brandy, and Captain Fisher in their individual capacities for compensatory and punitive damages for holding him in a cell from March 26, 2021, to Ma rch 29, 2021, with a nonworking toilet while the floor was covered in urine and feces in violation of the Eighth Amendment. All other claims are DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), to request Waiver of Service from (and if necessary, the United States Marshals Service to use any lawful means to locate and serve process on) Sgt. Breaton, Sgt. Brandy, and Captain Fisher at the Indiana Department of Correction, with a copy of this order and the amended complaint (ECF 7). The Indiana Department of Correction is ORDERED to provide the full name, dateof birth, and last known home address of any defendant who does not waive service if it has such information; and the court ORDERS, under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) , Sgt. Breaton, Sgt. Brandy, and Captain Fisher to respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claims for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order. Signed by Judge Damon R Leichty on 11/21/22. (mlc)
USDC IN/ND case 3:22-cv-00227-DRL-MGG document 8 filed 11/21/22 page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
RAYMOND LEE SMITH, III,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAUSE NO. 3:22-CV-227-DRL-MGG
KOREY BREATON, FISHER, and
BRANDY,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Raymond Lee Smith, III, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed an amended complaint
alleging he was held in a cell with a non-working toilet that had overflowed onto the floor
at the Miami Correctional Facility. ECF 7. “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). Nevertheless, under 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.
Mr. Smith alleges his toilet overflowed on March 26, 2021, and spilled urine and
feces on his cell floor. He alleges he told Sgt. Korey Breaton who said he would call
maintenance to fix the toilet. Sgt. Breaton did not offer Mr. Smith a way to clean his cell.
The next day, Mr. Smith alleges he told Sgt. Brandy about the problem. She said she
USDC IN/ND case 3:22-cv-00227-DRL-MGG document 8 filed 11/21/22 page 2 of 4
would call maintenance and allow him to clean his cell floor. She gave him a trash bag to
cover the toilet but did not provide him with a way to clean the floor. That evening, Mr.
Smith alleges he told Sgt. Breaton again. Though Sgt. Breaton said he would let him clean
his cell, he did not provide him a means to do so. The following morning, Mr. Smith
alleges he told Sgt. Brandy again with the same results. That night, he alleges he told Sgt.
Breaton again. This time he alleges he was temporarily let out of his cell, but given no
means to clean it before or after he was put back. Mr. Smith alleges there were other clean
cells with working toilets, but Sgt. Breaton refused to move him because Captain Fisher
denied the request. On March 29, 2021, after three days, the problem was fixed. During
that time, Mr. Smith alleges his cell floor was covered with urine and feces, that he did
not have a working toilet, and that he used a trash bag as a toilet when he needed to
relieve himself.
The Eighth Amendment requires prison officials “must provide humane
conditions of confinement . . . and must ‘take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety
of the inmates.’” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (quoting Hudson v. Palmer, 468
U.S. 517, 526–27 (1984)). Conditions of confinement must be severe to support an Eighth
Amendment claim. “[T]he prison officials’ act or omission must result in the denial of
‘the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.’” Id. at 834. 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). “[T]he
duration of the condition . . . determines whether the conditions of confinement are
unconstitutional.” Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 1997).
2
USDC IN/ND case 3:22-cv-00227-DRL-MGG document 8 filed 11/21/22 page 3 of 4
In evaluating an Eighth Amendment claim, courts conduct both an objective and
a subjective inquiry. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). The objective prong asks
whether the alleged deprivation is “sufficiently serious” that the action or inaction of a
prison official leads to “the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.”
Id. Although “the Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons,” Rhodes v.
Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981), inmates are entitled to adequate food, clothing, shelter,
bedding, hygiene materials, and sanitation. Knight v. Wiseman, 590 F.3d 458, 463 (7th Cir.
2009); Gillis v. Litscher, 468 F.3d 488, 493 (7th Cir. 2006). On the subjective prong, the
prisoner must show the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to the inmate’s
health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. As the court of appeals has explained:
[C]onduct is deliberately indifferent when the official has acted in an
intentional or criminally reckless manner, i.e., the defendant must have
known that the plaintiff was at serious risk of being harmed and decided
not to do anything to prevent that harm from occurring even though he
could have easily done so.
Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 478 (7th Cir. 2005) (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted); see also Reed v. McBride, 178 F.3d 849, 855 (7th Cir. 1999) (where inmate
complained about severe deprivations but was ignored, he established a “prototypical
case of deliberate indifference”). Giving Mr. Smith the benefit of the inferences to which
he is entitled at this stage of the proceedings, the complaint states a claim against the
three defendants.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS Raymond Lee Smith III leave to proceed against Sgt. Breaton, Sgt.
Brandy, and Captain Fisher in their individual capacities for compensatory and punitive
3
USDC IN/ND case 3:22-cv-00227-DRL-MGG document 8 filed 11/21/22 page 4 of 4
damages for holding him in a cell from March 26, 2021, to March 29, 2021, with a nonworking toilet while the floor was covered in urine and feces in violation of the Eighth
Amendment;
(2) DISMISSES all other claims;
(3) DIRECTS the clerk, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), to request Waiver of Service from
(and if necessary, the United States Marshals Service to use any lawful means to locate
and serve process on) Sgt. Breaton, Sgt. Brandy, and Captain Fisher at the Indiana
Department of Correction, with a copy of this order and the amended complaint (ECF 7);
(4) ORDERS the Indiana Department of Correction to provide the full name, date
of birth, and last known home address of any defendant who does not waive service if it
has such information; and
(5) ORDERS, under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), Sgt. Breaton, Sgt. Brandy, and Captain
Fisher to respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind.
L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claims for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed
in this screening order.
SO ORDERED.
November 21, 2022
s/ Damon R. Leichty
Judge, United States District Court
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?