Gins v. J B Evans Correctional Center et al

Filing 11

RULING adopting 9 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge re 1 Complaint filed by Jasen Dunnell Gins. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 1/23/09. (crt,DickersonSld, D)

U s.DISTRICT COURT WESTERN LMSTRICTOF LOUISIANA

IIAN

23 2009

TJNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ROBERXA~~hu,CLERK

I

P1!TP~I

ci

!!~PPT~IAA N

MONROE DWISION JASEN DONNELL GINS VERSUS J.B. EVANS COIIRECTIONAL CENTER, ETAL. CWIL ACTION NO. 08-1475 JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES MAG. JUI)GE KAREN L. HAYES

RIJLHTG On December 17, 2008, Magistrate Judge Karen L. Hayes issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 9], recommending that Plaintiff Jasen Dorinell Gins' ("Gins") Complaint be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On December 29, 2008, Gins filed Written Objections [Doc. No. 10]. For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Hayes's recommendation. Gins alleges that he "was taken [to] medicine for [a rash] and the doctor stated for [him] to wash it off good with hot water." [Doc. No. 1, p.5]. Gins complains that he has been forced to take cold showers "for weeks" and that this "has caused more rashto break out on me." [Doc. No. I, p.5]. He names several supervisory officials as defendants, one of whom "knew of this situation and fail[ed] to let inmates out to take hot shower." [Doe. No. I, p.5]. Magistrate Judge Hayes analyzed Gins' allegations as an Eighth Amendment condition of confinement claim and held that he failed to state a claim because his alleged physical injury was de ininimis. The Court agrees that Gins has failed to state a condition of confinement claim. Even if Gins alleged a sufficient physical injury, he has not alleged that Defendants intentionally deprived him ofhot water. Instead, Defendants were attempting to remedy the situation: Defendant Deputy

Warden Pailette responded to one ofthe grievances Gins filed and indicatedthat a necessary part had been ordered and was expected to arrive soon. [Doc. No. 1, p. 7]. See Taylor v. Woods, 05-41099, 211 Fed. Appx. 240, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 26780, at *3_4 (5th Cir. Oct. 26, 2006) (upholding district court's denial of condition of confinement claim based on the water temperatures in the prison shower because the prisoner admitted that prison officials were working to resolve the problem). Inhis Written Objections, Gins contends that"[Defendant] J.B. Evans [Correctional Center] was notified by the doctor and nurse about the plaintiff's skin condition but never did follow through with the doctor's orders.
. . .

[A] violation `[can] be established' where guards `intentionally

interfere II] with the treatment once prescribed." [Doc. No. 10, p. 1 (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976))]. Gins' complaint about the lack of hot water, as clarified by his objections, also appears to be a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Deliberate indifference may be "manifested.
.

.by prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or

intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed." Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104. It is unclear from Gins' Complaint whether he alleges that Defendants were aware of his medical condition and the doctor's order that he take a hot shower to clear up his rash or whether he alleges that Defendants were aware that there was no hot water available. Even if Gins had alleged that Defendants were aware of the doctor's order, Gins' allegations do not support the inference that any Defendant intentionally interfered with his treatment. As explained previously, Defendants were attempting to fix the showers. Gins' Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and for failing to state a
9

claim upon which relief can be granted. MONROE, LOUISIANA, this

____ day of January, 2009.

ROBERT G. JAMELI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cX5etzt ~v

3