Yuman v. Mills
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 2/28/2017. (c/m 2/28/17) (kr2, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
LEROY YUMAN, IV
*
Plaintiff,
v.
*
* CIVIL ACTION NO. GLR-17-275
WARDEN STEVE MILLS
*
Defendant.
*
*****
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On January 27, 2017, Plaintiff Leroy Yuman, IV, an inmate housed at the Roxbury
Correctional Institution in Hagerstown, Maryland, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint seeking
unspecified compensatory relief. He alleges that while housed at the Dorchester County Detention
Center (“DCDC”) in 2015, he exited the shower area, slipped in “some nasty stagnant water,” and
sustained a bad cut to his foot when he “struggled to pull my foot from under the shower door.”
(Compl., ECF No. 1-1). Yuman states that there were no signs placed in the area stating “wet floor”
or “caution.” (Id.). He alleges, moreover, that he was taken to the nurses’ room and it took fortyfive minutes for personnel to decide he had to go to the hospital to get stitches. (Id.). He contends
he bled a lot and was in extreme pain during the entire incident. (Id.). The Complaint was
accompanied by a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, which will be granted. (ECF No.
2).
The Court concludes that Yuman’s allegations state no constitutional violations. To the
extent that this action is filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a private cause of action for
constitutional violations by persons acting under color of state law, it will be dismissed. Section
1983 “is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides ‘a method for vindicating
federal rights elsewhere conferred.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994) (quoting Baker v.
McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)). Accordingly, a civil action under § 1983 allows “a party
who has been deprived of a federal right under the color of state law to seek relief.” City of
Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687, 707 (1999). See also 28 U.S.C. §§
1343(a)(3) and (4); West v. Adkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988); Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S.
922, 928-930 (1982).
Section 1983 provides, in relevant part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State ... subjects, or causes to be subjected,
any citizen of the United States or any person within the jurisdiction
thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party
injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding
for redress….
To establish a claim under § 1983, a Plaintiff must prove two elements: (1) that the
Defendant “deprived [the Plaintiff] of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United
States;” and (2) that the Defendant “deprived [the Plaintiff] of this constitutional right under color of
[State] statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage.” Mentavlos v. Anderson, 249 F.3d 301, 310
(4th Cir. 2001) (third alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus,
jurisdictional and threshold requirements of §1983 civil actions demand that a substantial federal
claim be asserted and that the named defendants act "under color of" state law.
Presumably, Yuman was confined at the DCDC as a pre-trial detainee. Confinement
conditions of pretrial detainees are to be evaluated under the Due Process Clause rather than under
the Eighth Amendment.1 See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979); Hill v. Nicodemus,
1
Yuman’s claims are analyzed under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,
2
979 F.2d 987, 990 (4th Cir. 1992). While a convicted inmate must prove that his confinement is
cruel and unusual punishment, detainees need only prove that their confinement amounts to
punishment in order to state a claim. See Nelson v. Collins, 659 F.2d 420, 425 (4th Cir. 1981).
Yuman has, at best, set out a claim of negligence for the alleged failure to place a caution or wet
floor sign around the shower area. A claim of negligence is not colorable under § 1983. See Daniels
v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328-336 & n.3 (1986); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 345–48
(1986); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).
Further, Yuman claims that he was immediately taken to the medical department or “nurse’s
room” and it took personnel forty-five minutes to decide that he needed to go to a local hospital for
sutures to his injury. Such allegations do not evince the deliberate indifference or punitive behavior
to set out an Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment claim. The Complaint will be dismissed without
prejudice to allow Yuman the opportunity to file a complaint in the appropriate state court.
For the foregoing reasons, Yuman’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted,
but his Complaint will be dismissed. A separate Order follows.
Date: February 28, 2017
/s/
George L. Russell, III
United States District Judge
rather than the Eighth Amendment. As a practical matter, however, at the present time courts do not
distinguish between the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments in the context of a pre-trial detainee’s
§ 1983 claim on such issues. See Hill v. Nicodemus, 979 F.2d 987, 990–92 (4th Cir. 1992). But see
Kinsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 2476 (2015) (excessive force claims may be subject to a
different standard for pre-trial, as opposed to sentenced, detainees.).
3
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?