Harbin v. Huddleston et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell. Upon initial review, the Court will allow Plaintiff's allegations of denial of outdoor and indoor recreation to continue for further development against all Defendants in their individual capacities. Plaintiff's retaliation claim is DISMISSED. cc:Plaintiff, pro se; General Counsel, Justice & Public Safety Cabinet, Office of Legal Counsel (ERH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13CV-P150-R
GEORGE MARION HARBIN

PLAINTIFF

v.
HOBERT HUDDLESTON et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff George Marion Harbin filed the instant pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
proceeding in forma pauperis. This matter is before the Court on initial review pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Upon review, the Court will allow Plaintiff’s denial-of-recreation claims to
continue and dismiss his retaliation claim.
I.
Plaintiff is an inmate at the Kentucky State Penitentiary (KSP). He sues ten KSP
personnel in their individual capacities only. Plaintiff is incarcerated in KSP’s 7 cellhouse,
which he states is a supermax segregation unit. He states that he has been denied “outside
recreation for about 10 or 11 months so far and could be without it for another 4 ½ years being
that Plaintiff’s segregation time doesn’t cease until February of 2018.” He states that the indoor
recreation in 7 cellhouse consists of an “identical cell like the one you live in with the exception
of it being completely empty.” He describes the indoor recreation as follows:
You are in complete and total isolation. There is no inmate to inmate interaction and
hardly no human contact at all. It’s cold and filled with loud echos. It is fair to say
that the Plaintiff is deprived of almost any environmental or sensory stimuli and that
7 cellhouse is highly restrictive in itself without more restrictions.
He contends that he was denied indoor recreation on multiple dates. Plaintiff also states that he

was denied recreation “because of retaliatory behavior by K.S.P. officials.” As relief, Plaintiff
seeks compensatory and punitive damages and reimbursement of fees and costs.
II.
When a prisoner initiates a civil action seeking redress from a governmental entity,
officer, or employee, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss the complaint, or any
portion of it, if the court determines that the complaint 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, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). When
determining whether a plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court
must construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept all of the factual
allegations as true. Prater v. City of Burnside, Ky., 289 F.3d 417, 424 (6th Cir. 2002). 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)).
III.
Retaliation
Retaliation for the exercise of a constitutional right is itself a violation of the First
Amendment actionable under § 1983. Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 394 (6th Cir. 1999).
In order to state a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he engaged in constitutionally
protected conduct, (2) an adverse action was taken against him that would deter a person of
ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that conduct, and (3) there is a causal connection

2

between elements (1) and (2), meaning that the adverse action was motivated at least in part by
the plaintiff’s protected conduct.
Plaintiff alleges that he was denied recreation because of “retaliatory behavior,” but
nowhere in the complaint or attachments does he allege what was the constitutionally protected
conduct he engaged in which caused Defendants to retaliate against him. For this reason,
Plaintiff’s retaliation claim will be denied for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
Recreation
Upon review, the Court will allow Plaintiff’s allegations of denial of outdoor and indoor
recreation to continue for further development against all Defendants in their individual
capacities. In allowing the claims to go forward, the Court passes no judgment on their ultimate
outcome.
IV.
For the reasons set forth herein, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s retaliation claim is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The Court will enter a separate Scheduling Order governing the development of the
claims that have been permitted to proceed.
Date:

February 26, 2014

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
General Counsel, Justice & Public Safety Cabinet, Office of Legal Counsel
4413.010

3