Johnson v. Miller et al
Filing
38
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 34 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 32 ; Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 12/2/14. Copy mailed to Plaintiff. (WS)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
JOSEPH L. JOHNSON
PLAINTIFF
V.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-50-LRA
MAJOR J. MILLER, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary [32] as to
unexhausted claims, as well as Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [34] as to exhausted
claims. Having considered the entire record in this matter, the Court concludes that the motions are
well-taken and are hereby granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit pro se and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the
conditions of his confinement at the Walnut Grove Correctional Facility (WGCF). [1]. Defendants,
Warden Lawrence Mack and Major James Miller, were assigned to work at WGCF. The Court held
an omnibus or Spears hearing in this matter on April 16, 2014, at which Plaintiff was afforded the
opportunity to fully explain his claims.1 At the hearing, all parties consented to the undersigned
deciding this case in its entirety. [27].
Plaintiff alleges that while he was incarcerated at WGCF, he had no working toilet and had
to use the bathroom in the showers. According to Plaintiff, the showers were terribly mildewed and
this aggravated his asthma. Plaintiff claims that he stayed sick the entire time he was there. Plaintiff
1
See Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 180 (5th Cir. 1985).
1
further alleges that until January 2013, there was no sound on the TV unless you could purchase
earplugs at the canteen. Plaintiff claims that although he had a locker box, he was unable to lock
the box to keep his legal papers private. Plaintiff claims that the day room was extremely cold, but
Defendants would not allow him to wear his coat in there. Plaintiff also alleges that the inmates
were never brought cleaning supplies and that he could not clean his own cell and the showers
without supplies.
Plaintiff further contends that he has been diagnosed with a heart condition, asthma,
bronchitis and an ulcer, and that chemicals used in the zone irritated his illnesses. He asserts that
his bronchitis was caused by Defendants’ failure to treat his asthma. According to Plaintiff,
Defendants also failed to treat his heart problems. He claims that he had chest pains while housed
at WGCF and went to the medical unit for treatment. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants only gave him
asthma treatments and baby aspirin. Additionally, though Plaintiff alleges that he put in a sick call
every other week, he claims Defendants would only check his blood pressure and his asthma; they
would not give him heart medication.
EXHAUSTION
Defendants contend that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies, except with
respect to his claims concerning not having a lock, the cell doors being locked when inmates are out
of their cells, and not being allowed to wear his jacket in the day room. Plaintiff argues that he did
submit grievances regarding the other matters he has raised, but he has failed to produce any
evidence other than one document he represents to be a copy of an amendment to his grievance.
[28].
2
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e), provides that “[n]o action
shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other
Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such
administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” This statute clearly requires an inmate
bringing a civil rights action in this Court to first exhaust his available administrative remedies.
Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001). Exhaustion is no longer left to the discretion of the
district court, but is mandatory. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). Exhaustion will not
be excused when an inmate fails to timely exhaust his administrative remedies; the exhaustion
requirement also means “proper exhaustion.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83-84 (2006). It is
not enough to merely initiate the grievance process or to put prison officials on notice of a
complaint; the grievance process must be carried through to its conclusion.
Wright v.
Hollingsworth, 260 F.3d 357, 358 (5th Cir. 2001). This is so regardless of whether the inmate’s
ultimate goal is a remedy not offered by the administrative process, such as money damages. Id.
Plaintiff admits that he was aware of the grievance process. He successfully completed it
with respect to some of his claims. However, as noted supra, in response to Defendants’ motion the
only evidence he has submitted to show compliance with respect to all his claims is what he
represents to be a copy of an alleged amendment to his grievance. [28] at 3. This document is not
stamped received by WGCF. Moreover, even if this amendment could be construed to cover the
remaining claims not covered by the undisputedly filed grievance, this document is dated January
2, 2013. Plaintiff signed the instant lawsuit on January 9, 2013. [1]. Given that his initial grievance
took fifty-five days to process [32-1], it is inconceivable that a second grievance regarding entirely
3
different matters would have been completely processed through two steps in seven days. The Court
finds that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies, except with respect to the matters
covered by his November 10, 2012 grievance. [32-1] at 5.
LOCKS AND LOCKED DOORS
Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims concerning denial of a padlock and
locking of cell doors for failure to allege a constitutional violation. The Eighth Amendment
prohibits cruel and unusual punishment of convicted inmates but Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s
allegations do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
While the Constitution does not require that custodial inmates be housed
in comfortable prisons, the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel
and unusual punishment does require that prisoners be afforded “humane
conditions of confinement” and prison officials are to ensure that inmates
receive adequate food, shelter, clothing, and medical care. In order to establish
an Eighth Amendment violation regarding conditions of confinement, an
inmate must establish: first, that the deprivation alleged was sufficiently
serious (i.e., an official's act or omission must have resulted in the denial of
“the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities”); and second, that the
prison official possessed a sufficiently culpable state of mind. The required
state of mind for cases related to prison conditions is that the official acted
with deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety. Deliberate indifference
is established by showing that the defendant officials “(1) were aware of facts
from which an inference of excessive risk to the prisoner's health or safety could
be drawn and (2) that they actually drew an inference that such potential for
harm existed.”
Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 664 (5th Cir. 2001)(internal citations omitted). In this case,
Defendant Miller signed the first step response to the only grievance of record and Defendant Mack
signed the second step response. That appears to be the extent of their involvement.
Defendant Mack, in the second step response to Plaintiff’s grievance, explained that padlocks
are a major security concern at WGCF. Inmates could potentially conceal contraband in their locked
4
boxes and/or use the padlocks themselves as weapons against other inmates or prison staff. That
Plaintiff may have been allowed a padlock while incarcerated at another facility, as he claims, in no
manner makes WGCF’s prohibition of padlocks unconstitutional. Plaintiff has not alleged that any
other inmate accessed his legal papers, or that any of his personal property was taken. There is no
evidence that denying Plaintiff a padlock to store his personal property caused him to be deprived
of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Plaintiff has failed to state any claim that
would entitle him to relief under Section 1983 with respect to denial of a padlock.
Plaintiff has also failed to establish a constitutional deprivation based on the facility’s policy
to keep cell doors locked while inmates are out of their cells. He claims that once when he was at
recreation he had to “hold it” for an hour while waiting for a correctional officer because he could
not access the toilet in his cell. Plaintiff has failed to establish that this security policy deprived him
of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities or that he was injured in any way. This type
policy falls within the discretion prison officials must use in carrying out legitimate penological
interests. See, e.g., Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 215 (5th Cir. 1998)(prison regulations claimed to
infringe constitutional rights will be upheld if in place for legitimate penological interests). Not only
did this policy negate the need for a padlock, it also addresses a safety concern since inmates could
potentially hide themselves or contraband in unlocked cells.
A JACKET IN THE DAY ROOM
Finally, Defendants argue that summary judgment is warranted as to Plaintiff’s claim about
his jacket as well. Plaintiff alleges that he was uncomfortably cold in the day room because he was
not allowed to wear his MDOC-issued jacket. Plaintiff testified that he was allowed to wear his
jacket in his cell and outside. [34-1] at 8-10. He was informed that jackets are not allowed in the
5
day room because of the security risk. Id. Officers explained to him that there had been incidents
in the day room and that jackets could be used to hide weapons. Id. Moreover, Plaintiff does not
have to go to the day room unless he wants to watch television. Id. The Fifth Circuit has held that
uncomfortable prison temperatures alone do not constitute a constitutional violation. Woods v.
Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 581 (5th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff has failed to state a claim regarding not being
allowed to wear his jacket in the day room.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing the Court hereby grants both motions [32, 34] filed by Defendants.
The unexhausted claims are dismissed without prejudice and the exhausted claims are dismissed
with prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered.
SO ORDERED, this the 2nd day of December, 2014.
/s/ Linda R. Anderson
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
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?