Phoenix v. Rasco et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 7 Judgment. Signed by Neal B. Biggers on 5/17/13. (cr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY R. PHOENIX

PLAINTIFF

v.

No. 3:13CV48-B-V

BILL RASCO, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on the pro se prisoner complaint of Anthony R.
Phoenix, who challenges the conditions of his confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the
purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court notes that the plaintiff was incarcerated
when he filed this suit. The plaintiff alleges that the floors in the DeSoto County Jail were
slippery, causing him to fall and injure himself, and that various problems in the jail arising out
of a poor ventilation system constituted deficient general conditions of confinement in the jail.
For the reasons set forth below, the instant case will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted.
Allegations
On January 23, 2013, the plaintiff alleges he slipped, fell and hurt his head and eye and
busted his lip as he exited the top bunk in his cell. Further allegations are that the floor was wet
due to poor ventilation and the temperature and humidity conditions at the time; the ventilation
system had been functioning poorly since January 4, 2013, and the plaintiff had complained, but
no action was taken to remedy the problem; the plaintiff’s attempt to address the problem
through the grievance system was answered by promises to fix the ventilation system, and the
administration issued a maintenance order to alleviate the problem. The ventilation system was,

apparently, still out of commission when the plaintiff filed the instant complaint on February 25,
2013.
In his grievance, the plaintiff also complained that the plumbing was “shoddy” because
the toilets did not flush properly, mold grew on the walls, and the ventilation ducts were rusty.
There appears to have been a mishandling of the first grievance (filed January 19, 2013), but the
plaintiff received a response to his second grievance (filed February 12, 2013) on the following
day. In response to the plaintiff’s second grievance, the administration opened door to the
recreation yard to improve air circulation, required a thorough cleaning of all inmate cells, and
stopped housing inmates in the area affected by mold. The administration also arranged for a
mold specialist to check the affected areas, and repaired plumbing to alleviate the plaintiff’s
complaints regarding the toilets.
Negligence
The plaintiff’s complaint regarding his fall on the slick floor in his cell sounds wholly in
negligence. However, negligent conduct by prison officials does not rise to the level of a
constitutional violation. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 106 S.Ct. 662 (1986), Davidson v.
Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 106 S.Ct. 668 (1986). As such, this allegation will be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
General Conditions of Confinement
“[T]he Eighth Amendment may afford protection against conditions of confinement
which constitute health threats but not against those which cause mere discomfort or
inconvenience.” Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 849 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 969
(1989)(citation omitted). Prison officials have certain duties under the Eighth Amendment, but
-2-

these duties are only to provide prisoners with “humane conditions of confinement,” including
“adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care . . . .” Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 581
n.10 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994)). The condition
about which the plaintiff complains rise to the level of discomfort and inconvenience, not
deprivation of a basic human need, particularly considering the response by the jail
administration once the grievance reached the hands of the Lieutenant in charge of jail
conditions. Based upon a review of the “totality of the circumstances,” McCord v. Maggio, 910
F.2d 1248 (5th Cir. 1990), the plaintiff’s claims do not rise to the level of a constitutional
violation. Plaintiff has not identified any “basic human need” which he was denied for an
unreasonable period of time, Woods, 51 F.3d at 581, and he has not alleged that he has suffered
harm from the conditions at the jail (other than his slip and fall, discussed above).
For these reasons the instant case will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted. A final judgment consistent with this memorandum opinion will issue
today.

SO ORDERED, this the 17th day of May, 2013.

/s/ Neal B. Biggers
NEAL B. BIGGERS
SENIOR U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-