Wieland (0112771) v. Rucker et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: This matter must be dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief. This matter is dismissed. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 03/26/21. Mailed to pro se party Ronald B. Wieland by regular mail. (smnd)

Case 5:17-cv-03199-SAC Document 20 Filed 03/26/21 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
RONALD B. WIELAND,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 17-3199-SAC

(fnu) RUCKER, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. The court has examined plaintiff’s amended complaint and
his response to the court’s notice and order to show cause (NOSC)
and enters the following findings and order.
Nature of the Complaint
Plaintiff spent approximately 20 months in the Shawnee County
Adult Detention Center between November 2015 and the filing of this
action in November 2017. In this action, he claims the conditions
of his confinement there violated his constitutional rights. The
amended complaint presents the following claims: (1) On September
12, 2017, plaintiff’s cell was flooded when the prisoner in the
next cell intentionally caused the toilet to overflow with water
and feces. Plaintiff notified staff of the flooding at approximately
10 p.m. A staff member gave plaintiff two towels and advised him
that he would notify maintenance. Maintenance workers arrived the
following morning to address the flooding, and plaintiff was moved
to another cell. However, plaintiff states that the new cell also
was filthy and had feces on the wall, door, and window. (2)
Plaintiff complains of lockdowns at the jail that lasted 48 to 96

Case 5:17-cv-03199-SAC Document 20 Filed 03/26/21 Page 2 of 6

hours. During these periods, prisoners had no access to common areas
of the jail, including the outdoor courtyard, exercise areas, or
showers. They also could not access cleaning products during these
periods. (3) Plaintiff claims that prisoners placed in disciplinary
confinement

were

held

in

suicide

prevention

cells

and

close

observation cells that lacked furniture, beds, toilets, and sinks.
They also had no access to exercise areas, the dayroom, and other
common areas during their disciplinary placement.
Discussion
Because

it

appears

plaintiff

was

in

pretrial

confinement

during the relevant time, his claims of unconstitutional conditions
are governed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
However, the Eighth Amendment standard provides the benchmark for
such a claim. Craig v. Eberly, 164 F.3d 490, 495 (10th Cir. 1998).
The analysis of a claim under the Eighth Amendment has two
components. “First, the deprivation alleged must be, objectively,
‘sufficiently

serious.’” Farmer

v.

Brennan,

511

U.S.

825,

834

(1994). This factor requires the prisoner to show that he is
“incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious
harm.” Id. It is settled that the Constitution does not guarantee
“comfortable

prisons”

and

that

only conditions “denying

‘the

minimal civilized measure of life's necessities’ are sufficiently
grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation.” Wilson
v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 299 (1991)(internal citations omitted).
Prison

officials

meet

this

standard

if

they

“provide

humane conditions of confinement by ensuring inmates receive the
basic necessities of adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical
care and by taking reasonable measures to guarantee the inmates’

Case 5:17-cv-03199-SAC Document 20 Filed 03/26/21 Page 3 of 6

safety.” McBride

v.

Deer,

240

F.3d

1287,

1291

(10th

Cir.

2001)(citation omitted).
Next, a prisoner must show the defendant prison officials had
a “sufficiently culpable state of mind”, a subjective component
which requires a showing that defendants acted with deliberate
indifference

to

the

well-being

of

the

prisoners

in

their

care. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. “[T]he official must both be aware
of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial
risk

of

serious

harm

exists,

and

he

must

also

draw

the

inference.” Id. at 837. “The Eighth Amendment does not outlaw cruel
and

unusual

‘conditions’;

it

outlaws

cruel

and

unusual

‘punishments.’” Id. It is not enough to establish that the official
should have known of the risk of harm. Id.
Under this analysis, “the particular facts of each situation;
the

‘circumstances,

nature,

challenged conditions must

be

and

carefully

duration’

of

considered.” Despain

the
v.

Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965, 974 (10th Cir. 2001)(quoting Johnson v. Lewis,
217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000)). “While no single factor controls
... the length of exposure to the conditions is often of prime
importance.” Id. Under this standard, “minor deprivations suffered
for short periods would not rise to an Eighth Amendment violation,
while ‘substantial deprivations ...’ may meet the standard despite
a shorter duration.” Id. (citations omitted).
In order to state an Eighth Amendment violation, the
conditions of a plaintiff’s confinement must be “sure or very likely
to cause serious illness and needless suffering,” and give rise to
“sufficiently imminent dangers.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25,
33, 34 (1993). Notably, the Tenth Circuit has held that a situation

Case 5:17-cv-03199-SAC Document 20 Filed 03/26/21 Page 4 of 6

involving filthy cells and other conditions “‘simply [did] not rise
to the level of a constitutional violation’” where prisoners were
exposed to the conditions for only a short duration. DeSpain v.
Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965, 973 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting Barney v.
Pulsipher, 143 F.3d 1299, 1312 (10th Cir. 1998)). However, the Tenth
Circuit also has recognized that, in particular, “exposure to the
human waste of others carries a significant risk of contracting
infectious diseases such as Hepatitis A, shigella, and others.”
Shannon v. Graves, 257 F.3d 1164, 1168 (10th Cir. 2001).
The amended complaint states that on the late evening of
September 12, 2017, plaintiff reported to defendant Folds that there
was “foul smelling water” in his cell (Doc. 10, p. 11). Mr. Folds
advised plaintiff that he could not move him to another cell because
it was third shift and he was not authorized to do so, but he stated
he would put in a work order. Plaintiff asked for a mop or cleaning
supplies. Mr. Folds stated that he had not brought supplies because
it was the third shift, but he provided plaintiff with two towels
to place on the floor. Plaintiff states the maintenance crew arrived
“early the next morning” and identified the source of the water as
coming from another cell. Id.
Plaintiff then asked defendant Reamer for medical treatment;
he advised plaintiff to complete a form for sick call. Approximately
one hour later, plaintiff was moved to a different cell, which he
states was “the only available cell nearby.” Id.
Considered in light of the governing standards, these facts do
not state a claim for relief. Plaintiff advised defendant Folds of
“foul-smelling water” in his cell, but there is no evidence that
Mr. Folds knew that the water was coming from another cell or that

Case 5:17-cv-03199-SAC Document 20 Filed 03/26/21 Page 5 of 6

he was given information that reasonably suggested that plaintiff
was in conditions that threatened his safety. Mr. Folds provided
plaintiff with towels, and although plaintiff asserts these were
inadequate, there is no suggestion that he gave Mr. Folds any
additional information about the situation. Mr. Folds placed the
work order, as he told plaintiff he would. None of these allegations
supports a finding that defendant Folds acted with deliberate
indifference.
Likewise, the actions of defendant Reamer on the following
morning

do

not

show

deliberate

indifference.

Plaintiff

sought

immediate medical attention, but the amended complaint does not
suggest that he was in any kind of apparent medical emergency
despite his concerns. Mr. Reamer advised him of how to request
medical care. As noted, plaintiff was moved to another cell within
approximately one hour.
Finally, while the amended complaint states that the cell into
which plaintiff was moved also had “feces smeared on the wall, door,
and window”, plaintiff does not explain whether he notified anyone
of this, sought cleaning materials, or how long he was placed in
that cell. This allegation is insufficient to state a claim of
deliberate indifference against any defendant.
The balance of the amended complaint presents generalized
complaints concerning the conditions in the jail and claims that
provisions of the jail handbook have been violated. Plaintiff’s
complaints of occasional lockdowns and the use of specialized cells
for disciplinary placements do not establish either the objectively
serious conditions necessary to support an Eighth Amendment claim,
or the deliberate indifference needed to support the subjective

Case 5:17-cv-03199-SAC Document 20 Filed 03/26/21 Page 6 of 6

portion of the Eighth Amendment analysis.1 While the lack of access
to common areas and the inconvenience of placement in a cell without
furniture or a bed for short periods no doubt proved uncomfortable
or inconvenient, these conditions, without more, do not state a
claim for relief. Likewise, claims that the jail handbook has not
been followed strictly are insufficient to state a constitutional
violation.
For these reasons, the court concludes this matter must be
dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief.
IT

IS,

THEREFORE,

BY

THE

COURT

ORDERED

this

matter

is

dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 26th day of March, 2021, at Topeka, Kansas.

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

As explained in the NOSC, a prisoner must exhaust administrative
remedies before filing a federal lawsuit involving prison
conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This exhaustion requirement,
enacted
as
part
of
the
Prison
Litigation
Reform
Act,
“is mandatory under the PLRA and that unexhausted claims cannot be
brought in court.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007)
(citing Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002)).
The NOSC
also explained that plaintiff provided no information concerning
his exhaustion on the claim that suicide prevention and close
observation cells in the jail were used to house prisoners under
disciplinary sanctions and found that the claim was subject to
dismissal. Plaintiff’s response does not refute that.
1