Hubbard v. Correctional Corporation of America et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 5 Judgment. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 9/7/12. (cr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
ROBERT ANTHONY HUBBARD
PLAINTIFF
v.
No. 4:12CV47-A-S
CORRECTIONAL CORPORATION
OF AMERICA, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on the pro se prisoner complaint of Robert Anthony
Hubbard, 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. For the reasons set forth below, the instant case shall be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Allegations
Hubbard claims that after a June 6, 2011, massacre at the Delta Correctional Facility, the
heightened security measures led to a periodic instances of delays in food service, cold food, no
milk (for eight days), no fruits or vegetables, too little food, and food left on trays for too long.
He also alleges that for three meals the defendants took away the unit microwave, and, as a
result, he could not warm his cold cuts. He claims that his food spoiled from sitting out too long,
leading him to contract food poisoning. As a result, from August 12, 2011, to August 22, 2011,
he experienced fever, headaches, irregular bowel movements, excessive sweating, and
lightheadedness. Finally, he alleges that, despite several requests for medical treatment, he was
not treated for this condition until August 23, 2011. Nurse Brown put Hubbard on a special diet
for 90 days, and he returned to health.
General Conditions of Confinement
Hubbard’s claims regarding cold food and sickness do not state a constitutional claim.
“[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). “Inmates cannot expect the amenities, conveniences, and services of a good hotel.” Id.
at 849 n.5 (citation omitted). It is clear that prison officials have certain duties under the Eighth
Amendment, but 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)). Based upon a review of the “totality of the circumstances,” McCord v. Maggio, 910
F.2d 1248 (5th Cir. 1990), Hubbard’s claims do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
He has not identified any “basic human need” which he was denied for an unreasonable period
of time. See Woods, 51 F.3d at 581.
Negligence
In addition, Hubbard concedes that the delays in serving food arose from additional
security measures (such as feeding inmates individually in their cells, rather than in a group) in
the wake of a massacre occurring at Delta Correctional Facility. The additional burdens imposed
by heightened security interfered with the regular routine of feeding inmates. These allegations
sound in negligence only, and 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). This claim is without merit and will be dismissed.
2
Denial of Medical Treatment
In order to prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim for denial of medical care, a plaintiff
must allege facts which demonstrate “deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of
prisoners [which] constitutes ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain’ proscribed by the
Eighth Amendment . . . whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors or prison guards
in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care . . . .” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 104-105, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
The test for establishing deliberate indifference is one of “subjective recklessness as used in the
criminal law.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Under this standard, a state actor
may not be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless plaintiff alleges facts which, if true, would
establish that the official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety;
the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a
substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. at 838. Only in
exceptional circumstances may knowledge of substantial risk of serious harm be inferred by a
court from the obviousness of the substantial risk. Id. 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). In cases such as the
present one, arising from delayed medical attention rather than a clear denial of medical
attention, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he suffered substantial harm resulting from the delay
in order to state a claim for a civil rights violation. Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 193 (5th
Cir. 1993); Campbell v. McMillin, 83 F. Supp. 2d 761 (S.D. Miss. 2000). A prisoner’s mere
disagreement with medical treatment provided by prison officials does not state a claim against
3
the prison for violation of the Eighth Amendment by deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs. Gibbs v. Grimmette, 254 F.3d 545 (5th Cir.2001), Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d
286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997).
Hubbard received medical treatment (90 days of a special diet) for his illness, but he did
not receive treatment for ten days. His symptoms included fever, headaches, irregular bowel
movements, excessive sweating, and lightheadedness. Though he experienced ten days of
discomfort from the symptoms he describes, he has not stated a claim for deliberate indifference
to a serious medical need. A simple change in diet relieved his symptoms. Hubbard, himself,
attributes both the trouble with food delivery and the delay in his medical care to the aftermath
of the extreme violence at Delta Correctional Facility, not to malice or deliberate indifference on
the part of the defendants. These allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted.
In sum, all of the plaintiff’s claims will be dismissed for failure to state a constitutional
claim. A final judgment consistent with this memorandum opinion will issue today.
SO ORDERED, this the 7th day of September, 2012.
/s/ Sharion Aycock
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?