Unruh v. Schmelzer et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motion 2 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. This matter is dismissed as legally frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e). Plaintiff's motions to appoint counsel 3 and for the violation of civil rights 4 are denied. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 4/24/2012. (Mailed to pro se party Michael D. Unruh by regular mail.) (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

MICHAEL D. UNRUH,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 12-3072-SAC

CHUCK SCHMELZER, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on a civil action alleging a
violation of constitutional rights. Plaintiff is detained in the
Larned State Hospital (LSH) under a civil commitment. He proceeds
pro se, and the court grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
In this action, plaintiff alleges the defendants, employees of
the LSH, came to his housing unit and “used intimidation and strong
arm tactics with staff”1 to induce them to write an infraction
against him for having cardboard boxes and plastic bags in his room.
He also alleges that defendants have subjected him to harassment
about taking a shower, when in fact he showers every other day, and
that they have sprayed his room with air freshener for no apparent
reason. Plaintiff alleges a pattern of maltreatment exists, and he
seeks damages and costs.
Discussion
Because

plaintiff

proceeds

pro

se,

the

court

liberally

construes his pleadings. Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518,

1

Doc. 1, p. 2.

1520-21 (10th Cir.1992). The court nevertheless must review the
complaint for legal sufficiency. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Under § 1915(e), the court must dismiss a complaint if it finds
the action (1) is legally frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted or (3) seeks monetary
relief

from

a

§1915(e)(2).

defendant

In

this

who

is

context,

immune

the

from

term

suit.

“frivolous”

28

U.S.C.

means

the

complaint rests upon an “inarguable legal conclusion” or “fanciful
factual allegation.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989).
The requirement of liberal construction in a pro se plaintiff's
complaint means that where the court can reasonably read the
complaint “to state a claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it
should do so despite the plaintiff's failure to cite proper legal
authority, his confusion of various legal theories, his poor syntax
and

sentence

construction,

or

his

unfamiliarity

with

pleading

requirements.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff’s claims concern the conditions of his confinement.
Because plaintiff is confined under a civil commitment, his claims
are governed by the Due Process Clause. See Olsen v. Layton Hills
Mall,

312

F.3d

1304,

1315

(10th

Cir.

2002).

However,

while

plaintiff’s rights are secured by the Fourteenth Amendment, the
courts apply the identical analysis used in cases arising under the
Eighth

Amendment

for

evaluating

claims

of

unconstitutional

conditions of confinement. See McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, 79
F.3d 1014, 1022 (10th Cir. 1996). Under that standard, officials must
provide

“humane

conditions

of

confinement
2

by

ensuring

inmates

receive the basic necessities of adequate food, clothing, shelter,
and medical care and by taking reasonable measures to guarantee ...
safety.” Barney v. Pulsipher, 143 F.3d 1299, 1310 (10th Cir. 1998).
To prevail on a claim alleging unconstitutional conditions of
confinement, a plaintiff must show that the defendant officials
acted with deliberate indifference. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825 (1994)(explaining deliberate indifference standard).
To establish the defendants' liability under this standard,
plaintiff

must

show

both

that

defendants

“kn[ew]

of

and

disregard[ed] an excessive risk to [his] health and safety,” Farmer,
511 U.S. at 837, and that the alleged deprivation was “sufficiently
serious.” See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991).
Not every inconvenience or discomfort that occurs during a
lawful detention implicates the Constitution. Rather, “only those
deprivations

denying

necessities

...

are

the

minimum

civilized

sufficiently

grave”

measure
to

of

life’s

establish

a

constitutional violation. Seiter, id.
Here, the plaintiff’s claims do not show that he suffered a
sufficiently serious deprivation due to the acts of the defendants.
The conditions plaintiff describes may be unpleasant, but they do
not suggest that he has been subjected to any extreme deprivation.
The court therefore concludes this matter must be dismissed as
legally frivolous.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED plaintiff’s motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this matter is dismissed as legally
3

frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel
(Doc. 3) and for the violation of civil rights (Doc. 4) are denied.
A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 24th day of April, 2012, at Topeka, Kansas.

S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge

4