Shananaquet v. Bolton
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION & ORDER by Judge David J. Hale on 11/20/2017;, ( Show Cause Response due by 12/20/2017.) For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have 30 days from entry of thisMemorandum Opinion and Order to amend his complaint to seek different relief with regard to his black mold and poor ventilation claim. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send to Plaintiff the last page of a § 1983 form with this case number and the word amended on it.cc:Pro-Se Pla., Dft., Jefferson County Atty. (ARM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
PERRY SHANANAQUET,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-P550-DJH
MARK BOLTON,
Defendant.
* * * * *
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This is a pro se civil rights action brought by a pretrial detainee pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The Court granted Plaintiff Perry Shananaquet leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This
matter is before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons set forth
below, the action will be dismissed in part and Plaintiff will be allowed to amend his complaint.
I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee incarcerated at the Louisville Metro Department of
Corrections (LMDC). Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant Mark Bolton, the Director of
the LMDC, in his official capacity. Plaintiff states that he is bringing claims against LMDC for
“black mold, overcrowdedness, poor ventilation, out of order shower and sink, and violation of
the grievance procedure.”
Plaintiff first complains about his conditions of confinement at LMDC. He alleges that
several of the dorms he has been housed in have had showers with visible black mold. Plaintiff
states that he has asthma and that this medical condition has escalated “from mild to acute and
sometimes results in the use of a nebulizer.” Plaintiff further contends that LMDC has a poor
ventilation system clogged with dust which “has caused Plaintiff’s asthma to trigger.”
Plaintiff also alleges that LMDC is overcrowded and that “24 man dorms with 2 showers
3 toilets and 3 sinks” are “over populated by 16-20 and that has caused no access to the dayroom
and nowhere for the plaintiff to eat.” Plaintiff claims that these living conditions have caused
“emotion distress, threat to safety, lack of sleep, and excessive sleep due to depression.”
Plaintiff also states that since living in one specific dorm, “there has only been one shower for 40
people and 2 sinks.” He claims that this has caused “mental anguish, lack of hygiene, and
conflict.”
Plaintiff also states that on August 19, 2017, he was “given a disciplinary report for
refusing to follow staffs order.” Plaintiff writes that he was then “classified” to go a specific
dorm but that he refused out of fear for his safety. According to Plaintiff, he was then placed in a
“hold over cell with no bathroom for 1 hr.” He was then moved to another dorm with “no mat
and no boat.” Plaintiff states that he then refused this housing and was placed in another “hold
over [cell] with extreme cold air, no sink and no bathroom” until Plaintiff was advised that he
had been put back on the list to move to the dorm he had initially refused for “safety purposes.”
Plaintiff states that he stayed in the “hold over [cell] for a total of 14 hrs” with no sink and no
bathroom. Plaintiff claims that this incident “inflicted extreme mental anguish and sleep
deprivation.”
Finally, Plaintiff claims that LMDC officials are violating LMDC’s grievance procedures
by failing to timely respond to his grievances and by failing to return his grievances to him with
“proper signatures to prove delivered upon receiving a response.”
As relief, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages.
2
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Because Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking relief against governmental entities, officers,
and/or employees, this Court must review the instant action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under
§ 1915A, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss the complaint, or any portion of
the complaint, if the Court determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. See § 1915A(b)(1), (2); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir.
1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 544 U.S. 199 (2007). In order to survive
dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
“[A] district court must (1) view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff
and (2) take all well-pleaded factual allegations as true.” Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC,
561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009)
(citations omitted)). “[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
(2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). However, while liberal, this
standard of review does require more than the bare assertion of legal conclusions. See Columbia
Natural Res., Inc. v. Tatum, 58 F.3d 1101, 1109 (6th Cir. 1995). The Court’s duty “does not
require [it] to conjure up unpled allegations,” McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979),
or to create a claim for a plaintiff. Clark v. Nat’l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169
(6th Cir. 1975). To command otherwise would require the Court “to explore exhaustively all
potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, [and] would also transform the district court from its
3
legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments
and most successful strategies for a party.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278
(4th Cir. 1985).
III. ANALYSIS
Section 1983 creates no substantive rights but merely provides remedies for deprivations
of rights established elsewhere. Flint ex rel. Flint v. Ky. Dep’t of Corr., 270 F.3d 340, 351 (6th
Cir. 2001). Two elements are required to state a claim under § 1983. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S.
635, 640 (1980). “A plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and
laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person
acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). “Absent either element,
a § 1983 claim will not lie.” Christy v. Randlett, 932 F.2d 502, 504 (6th Cir. 1991).
A. CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT
“[P]rison officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and
medical care, 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)). However, “[n]ot every unpleasant experience a prisoner might endure while
incarcerated constitutes cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the Eighth
Amendment.”1 Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950, 955 (6th Cir. 1987). “Extreme deprivations are
required to make out a conditions-of-confinement claim” under the Eighth Amendment.
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992).
1
Because Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee and not a convicted prisoner, the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against
cruel and unusual punishment does not apply to him. See Watkins v. City of Battle Creek, 273 F.3d 682, 685 (6th
Cir. 2001). However, “[t]he Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the protection of the Eighth
Amendment to pretrial detainees such as Plaintiff.” Harrell v. Grainger Cty., Tenn., 391 F. App’x 519, 522 (6th Cir.
2010). Plaintiff’s conditions-of-confinement claims, therefore, will proceed under the Fourteenth Amendment, but
will be analyzed like Eighth Amendment claims. See Bass v. Strode, No. 1:12CV-P182-R, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
164074, at *5 (W.D. Ky. Nov. 15, 2012).
4
1. Black Mold and Poor Ventilation
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that black mold in the showers at LMDC and LMDC’s
poor ventilation system have caused his asthma to escalate from “mild to acute and sometimes
results in the use of a nebulizer.” As written, this claim is subject to dismissal because Plaintiff
seeks punitive damages. “A municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.” City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 260, 271 (1981).2 The Court,
however, will allow Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint to seek different relief. See
LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013) (“[U]nder Rule 15(a) a district court can
allow a plaintiff to amend his complaint even when the complaint is subject to dismissal under
the PLRA.”).
2. Overcrowding
Plainiff also claims that LMDC is so overcrowded that he has no access to the “dayroom”
and no place to eat. He further claims that there has only been “one shower for 40 people and 2
sinks.” He claims that these conditions have caused “emotional distress, threat to safety, lack of
sleep, excessive sleep due to depression . . . [and] lack of hygiene, conflict.”
The Sixth Circuit has held that “overcrowding is not, in itself, a constitutional
violation.” Agramonte v. Shartle, 491 F. App’x 557, 560 (6th Cir. 2012). To allege extreme
deprivation to support a viable prison-overcrowding claim, an inmate must allege that the
overcrowding results in “deprivations denying ‘the minimal civilized measure of life’s
necessities.’” Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991). Plaintiff’s allegations do not meet this
standard. See Agramonte v. Shartle, 491 F. App’x at 559-60 (finding that plaintiff’s
2
As noted above, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant Mark Bolton, the Director of the LMDC, in his
official capacity. This means Plaintiff’s suit is actually against the Louisville Metro Government. See, e.g.,
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985) (“Official-capacity suits . . . ‘generally represent another way of
pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.’”) (quoting Monell v. New York City Dep’t of
Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 n.55 (1978)).
5
allegations that the number of toilets, showers, wash basins, and showers had not increased with
the increased population, that there were lines to use the bathrooms and showers, and that there
were no comfortable places to sit to watch television or write letters failed to state an
overcrowding claim because plaintiff failed to allege an unconstitutional denial of basic
needs); Keeling v. Louisville Metro Corr. Dep’t, No. 314-CV-P697-DJH, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
69415, at *4-5 (W.D. Ky. May 29, 2015) (finding that plaintiff’s allegations that the cell pods are
crowded and that there was fighting over toiletries, soap, seating, and beds are not deprivations
of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities and, therefore, failed to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted).
The Court likewise finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege an unconstitutional denial of
his basic needs due overcrowding. Thus, the Court will dismiss this claim for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.
3. Temporary Cell Conditions
Plaintiff also complains that he was placed in a “hold over” cell with cold air, no sink,
and no bathroom for at least 14 hours. These allegations also fail to establish a harm of
constitutional magnitude.
In Abdur-Reheem-X v. McGinnis, the Sixth Circuit held that temporary placement in a
cell with no sink and no toilet did not violate the Eighth Amendment. No. 99-1075, 1999 U.S.
App. LEXIS 29997, at *2 (6th Cir. 1999). The Sixth Circuit has also held that the lack of
running water for six days is not a condition that violates the Eighth Amendment. Richmond v.
Settles, 450 F. App’x 448, 455 (6th Cir. Dec. 2, 2011); see also Holloway v. Gunnell, 685 F.2d
150 (5th Cir. 1985) (no claim stated where prisoner forced to spend two days in hot dirty cell
with no water); Anderson v. Morris, No. 4:16CV101-DMB-JMV, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
6
159954, at *30 (N.D. Miss. July 18, 2017) (no constitutional violation where inmate forced to
spend four days in a cell without working water fixtures (sink and toilet) because the deprivation
did not occur over an unreasonable period of time); Wiley v. Ky. Dep’t of Corr., No. 11-97HRW, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166385, at *11 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 21, 2012) (holding an inmate’s
placement in a “dry cell” with no running water failed to state a constitutional claim because the
discomforts the inmate experienced lasted for only 14 days); Clark v. Spey, No. 01-C-9669, 2002
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18122 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2002) (inmate held overnight in cold cell with no
toilet did not state a claim).
Thus, the Court will also dismiss this claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.
B. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
Finally, Plaintiff complains that his rights have been violated because LMDC officials are
not following LMDC’s official grievance procedure.
The Sixth Circuit has held that prisoners do not have a constitutionally protected liberty
interest in an inmate grievance procedure. See, e.g., Keenan v. Marker, 23 F. App’x 405, 407
(6th Cir. 2005) (holding there is no inherent constitutional right to an effective prison grievance
procedure.). Moreover, failure to reply to prison grievances is not sufficient to state a § 1983
claim. Lee v. Mich. Parole Bd., 104 F. App’x 490, 493 (6th Cir. 2004) (“Section 1983 liability
may not be imposed simply because a defendant denied an administrative grievance or failed to
act based upon information contained in a grievance.”); McGee v. Grant, 863 F.2d 883, at *3
(6th Cir. 1988) (“[I]nmate grievance procedures are not constitutionally required in state prison
systems, therefore, any failure on the part of defendants to follow grievance procedures does not
give rise to a § 1983 claim.”); Butterworth v. Jones, No. 3:07cv1073, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
7
80419, at *5 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 30, 2007) (“Although prisoners have a First Amendment right to
file grievances, . . . [they] cannot premise a § 1983 claim against [a prison official] based on
allegations that the grievance procedure produced an inadequate and/[or] unresponsive result
because there is no inherent constitutional right to a grievance procedure in the first place.”).
Thus, the Court will also dismiss this claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have 30 days from entry of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to amend his complaint to seek different relief with regard to
his black mold and poor ventilation claim. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send to
Plaintiff the last page of a § 1983 form with this case number and the word “amended” on it.
Plaintiff is WARNED that his failure to file an amended complaint within the time
allotted will result in dismissal of the entire action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Date:
November 20, 2017
David J. Hale, Judge
United States District Court
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Defendant
Jefferson County Attorney
4415.011
8
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?