HOOKER v. USA et al

Filing 94

ORDER adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 92 -granting 68 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 72 Motion for Default Judgment; denying 73 Motion for Entry of Default By JUDGE JOSEPH N LAPLANTE. (dfr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Samuel Hooker
v.

Civil No. 12-cv-00346-JNL

USA et al
O R D E R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone dated March 12, 2015.
The record is unclear as to whether Hooker was being held as a prisoner or as a pre-trial detainee
at the relevant time period, although it appears to this court that it was the latter. As such, the Eighth
Amendment has no bearing on the case. But the precisely correct detention/incarceration status makes no
difference to the court's analysis, as “the standard applied under the Fourteenth Amendment [governing
the claims of pre-trial detainees] is the same as the Eighth Amendment standard [governing the claims of
convicted inmates].” Leavitt v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 645 F.3d 484, 497 n.21 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting
Ruiz-Rosa v. Rullan, 485 F.3d 150, 155 (1st Cir. 2007)).
Further, in addition to cases cited in the March 12 Report and Recommendation, this court cites
Taylor v. Stateville Dep't of Corr., No. 10 C 3700, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127378 at **4-6 (N.D. Ill.
December 1, 2010) (Coleman, J.); Spencer v. Knapheide Truck Equip. Co., 183 F.3d 902, 906 (8th Cir.
1999) (failure to provide seatbelts or other safety restraints in patrol wagon did not constitute policy that
presented a substantial risk of serious harm); Smith v. Secretary for the Dep't of Corrections, 252 Fed.
Appx. 301, 303-04 (11th Cir. 2007) (failure to fasten inmate's seatbelt in converted utility van does not
constitute a substantial risk of serious harm); Dexter v. Ford Motor Co., 92 Fed. Appx. 637, 643 (10th
Cir. 2004) ("failure to seatbelt an inmate does not violate the Constitution"); Walls v. Kaho, No.
5:06cv188, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27840, 2009 WL 90117, at *2 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 31, 2009) (Parker, J.)
(policy of refusing to seatbelt inmates during transport not give rise to a cognizable constitutional claim);

Dade v. Kennard, No. 2:06CV869-TC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91962, 2008 WL 4879168, at * 3 (D. Utah
Nov. 3, 2008) (Campbell, J.) (routine failure to properly secure seatbelt does not create a substantial risk
of serious harm even where inmate is disabled or is otherwise unable to seatbelt himself); 2:07CV290,
Hughes v. Widup, No. 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 509, 2008 WL 56003, at *3 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 3, 2008)
(Lozano, J.) (failure to seatbelt handcuffed and shackled inmate was not a constitutional violation);
Ingram v. Herrington, No. 4:06CVP65M, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71781, 2007 WL 2815965, at *5 (W.D.
Ky. Sep. 26, 2007) (McKinley, J.) (failure to seatbelt prisoner did not constitute constitutional violation);
Young v. Hightower, No. 04-10309, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54507, 2007 WL 2214520, at *6 (E.D. Mich.
Jul. 27, 2007) (Lawson, J.) (refusing to seatbelt shackled prisoner does not constitute an excessive risk to
the inmate's health or safety); Mojet v. Transport Driver, No. 06:cv321, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85412,
2006 WL 3392944, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 22, 2006) (Springman, J.) (transporting inmates in vehicles
without seatbelts did not meet deliberate indifference standard); Williams v. City of New York, No. 03 C
5342, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26143, 2005 WL 2862007, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2005) (failure to
provide seatbelts on prison transport van does not constitute a constitutional violation under Section
1983).

SO ORDERED.
.
____________________________
Joseph N. Laplante
Chief Judge
Date: March 31, 2015
cc:

Counsel of Record