Kelly v. Caddo Correctional Center et al

Filing 6

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Complaint filed by Arthur L Kelly: IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's civil rights complaint should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Objections to R&R due by 12/28/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Hornsby on 12/10/09. (crt,Cassanova, M) Modified on 12/11/2009 to correct signature date. (Cassanova, M).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA S H R EV E P O RT DIVISION A R T H U R L. KELLY VERSUS D E P U T Y EVANS, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-1837-P J U D GE HICKS M A G I S T R A T E JUDGE HORNSBY

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION In accordance with the standing order of this Court, this matter was referred to the u n d e r s ig n e d Magistrate Judge for review, report, and recommendation. S T A T E M E N T OF CLAIM Befo re the Court is a civil rights complaint filed in forma pauperis by pro se plaintiff A r t h u r L. Kelly ("Plaintiff"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint was filed in this Cou rt on October 19, 2009. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the River Bend Detention C e n t e r but claims that his civil rights were violated by prison officials at the Caddo C o rr ec ti on al Center in Shreveport, Louisiana. He names Deputy Evans, Sgt. B.D. Acklen a n d the Caddo Correctional Center as defendants. P l a i n ti f f claims that on September 29, 2009, he ate breakfast at approximately 4:30 a .m . He claims that the lunch tray he was served that day did not meet his special dietary n e e d s . He claims Deputy Evans refused to ask the kitchen staff to prepare another tray for h im . P l a i n ti f f claims that subsequently, another lunch tray was prepared for him but that it was given to another inmate. He claims that he did not eat again until 4:30 p.m. He claims

t h a t because he was denied lunch, his blood pressure level increased and he became light hea ded and dizzy. Accordingly, he seeks restitution. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's civil rights should be dismissed with prejudice. L A W AND ANALYSIS P l a i n ti f f filed this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act which p r o v i d e s redress for persons "deprived of any rights, privileges or immunities" by a person a c t in g under color of state law. The particular right protected under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in matters which concern alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement is the Eighth A m e n d m e n t prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Under the Eighth

Am endm ent, prison officials are required to provide humane conditions of confinement, e n s u r in g that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter and medical care, and must t a k e reasonable measures to guarantee safety of inmates. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994). A n Eighth Amendment claim has two required components. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U . S . 294, 298, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2324 (1991). First, the deprivation alleged must be suff iciently serious. See id., 111 S. Ct. at 2324. "[O]nly those deprivations denying 'the m i n i m a l civilized measure of life's necessities' are sufficiently grave" to constitute cruel and u n u s u a l punishment. Id., 111 S. Ct. at 2324 (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 1 0 1 S.Ct. 2392, 2399 (1981)). Furthermore, this Court should consider the duration and the

Page 2 of 5

totality of the specific circumstances that constituted the conditions of Plaintiff's conf inem ent. Palmer v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346 (5 th Cir. 1999). Second, the prison official m u s t have acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind. See id. at 305, 111 S. Ct. at 2328; F a r m e r, 511 U.S. at 838, 114 S. Ct. at 1979. In prison condition of confinement cases, that state of mind is deliberate indifference, which the Supreme Court defined as knowing of and disre gar din g an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. See id., 114 S. Ct. at 1979. Fi na lly, a prisoner must also allege an injury that is more than de minimis, although it need not be significant. See Gomez v. Chandler, 163 F.3d 921, 924 (5th Cir. 1999). See a l s o Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 1997). In this case, after a thorough review of Plaintiff's complaint, read in a light most f a vora ble to him, the Court finds that the facts alleged do not support a finding that D e f e n d a n t s ' conduct was sufficiently harmful enough to deprive him of life's basic n e c e s s i t ie s . See Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298, 111 S. Ct. at 2324. Plaintiff complains that on Sep tem ber 29, 2009, he was deprived of one meal. After considering the duration and the totality of the specific circumstances that constituted the conditions of Plaintiff's conf inem ent, this Court finds that the facts alleged do not support a finding that Defendants' c o n d u c t was sufficiently harmful enough to deprive him of life's basic necessities. See W i l s o n, 501 U.S. at 298, 111 S. Ct. at 2324. Thus, Plaintiff's claim has failed to satisfy the first requirement of an Eighth Amendment claim.

Page 3 of 5

F u r t h e rm o r e , Plaintiff has not shown that Defendants' conduct was deliberately i n d i f ferent. He states that Defendants deprived him of one meal. There has been no a l l eg a t i o n that Defendants disregarded an excessive risk to the plaintiff's health or safety by failin g to take reasonable measures to abate it. Farmer, 114 S.Ct. 1970. The denial of a single meal is not a deprivation of life's basic necessities and the a c t io n s on the part of the prison officials do not evidence an attitude of deliberate i n d i f fe r e n c e . Thus, Plaintiff's claim has failed to satisfy the second requirement of an Eighth Am end me nt claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous. C O N C L U S IO N B e c a u s e Plaintiff filed this proceeding in forma pauperis ("IFP"), if this Court finds Pl ain tif f's complaint to be frivolous, it may dismiss the complaint as such at any time, before o r after service of process, and before or after answers have been filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); Green v. M cK askle , 788 F.2d 1116, 1119 (5th Cir. 1986); Spears v. McCotter, 7 6 6 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1985). District courts are vested with extremely broad discretion in making a determination of whether an IFP proceeding is frivolous and may dismiss a claim as frivolous if the IFP complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. See H i c k s v. Garner, 69 F.3d 22 (5th Cir. 1995); Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 1993); N e it zk e v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827 (1989). A cc or di ng ly;

Page 4 of 5

I T IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's civil rights complaint should be D I SM I S SE D WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). O B J E C T IO N S U n d e r the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), parties a g g r i e v ed by this recommendation have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and R e c om m e n d a t io n to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court, unless an e x t e n s io n of time is granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). A party may respond to another party's objection within seven (7) days after being served with a copy thereof. Counsel are d i r e c te d to furnish a courtesy copy of any objections or responses to the District Judge at the t i m e of filing. A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s set forth above, within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking, on appeal, the p r o p o s e d factual findings and legal conclusions that were accepted by the district court and t h a t were not objected to by the aforementioned party. See Douglas v. U.S.A.A., 79 F.3d 141 5 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in chambers, in Shreveport, Louisiana, on this 10th d a y of December 2009.

Page 5 of 5