McFadden v. Jenkins et al
Filing
13
ORDER that 1 Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 9/29/2017. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(khm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:17-cv-98-FDW
ROBERT LAMAR MCFADDEN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
)
JULIE JENKINS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (Doc. No. 1). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2); 1915A.
I.
BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Robert Lamar McFadden is a North Carolina prisoner currently
incarcerated at Marion Correctional Institution in Marion, North Carolina. Plaintiff filed this
action on April 5, 2017, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming the following persons as
Defendants: (1) Julie Jenkins, identified as the head of the “RDU Program C Rehabilitation
Department Unit” at Marion; (2) FNU Watkins, identified as the Assistant Superintendent at
Marion; (3) Davis Cothron, identified as an “Assistant over RDU C Rehabilitation Department
Unit”; and (4) FNU Swink, identified as the Director of Programs at Marion. Plaintiff purports
to bring a claim against Defendants for a violation of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right under
the U.S. Constitution not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment based on conditions of
confinement in the prison. In support of his claim, Plaintiff alleges the following facts:
This grievance is on inmates’ right to decent conditions in prison. I have
sent Ms. Jenkins, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Cothran, Mr. Swink request forms informing
1
them that the present canteen list is depriving inmates of a “basic human need.”
Which is violation to inmates Eighth Amendment. The present canteen list only
allow RDU inmates to purchase stamps, oil and shower shoes. We cannot
purchase dental floss, finger nail clippers, soap and other important hygiene items.
If we do not floss at least 2 to 3 times a day or if we don’t floss at all decay could
build up and cause gum cancer meaning loss of teeth. I went to the dentist on
2/14/17 at 12:27 pm and was told by the dentist and doctor that I had a lot of
decay build up to be young for not using dental floss. By inmates being in RDU
we are considered in the computer regular population meaning we should be able
to purchase these items that we are entitled to. I am no longer on RHCP (control
status) so why am I receiving a control status hygiene kit once a month if I am in
RDU regular population. Am I being punished for being a non-participant of
RDU.
On 2-19-17, 2-21-17, 3-8-17, 3-15-17, and 3-19-17, I have sent multiple
notice[s] and inmate request forms stating that inmates have a right to decent
conditions in prison. On 3-15-17 I have sent letters to Julie Jenkins, Mr. Watkins,
Mr. Cothran, Mr. Swink, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Corpening, Capt. Faircloth,
informing them that the way inmates are being treated while housed in the RDU
program (Rehabilitation Department Unit) is violating inmates’ constitutional
rights. I have asked Ms. Jenkins who is over the RDU program to please respond
and show any proof that Raleigh signed off on the canteen list that they are
forcing inmates who are housed in RDU program to use. I have wrote a grievance
but feel like there is a lot or corrupt/conspiracy going on at Marion Correctional
Institution. Due to Ms. Swink answering my Step One response when he is
involved in my grievance and should not have any dealings with answering my
grievance. I received two answered response from all the inmate request forms I
sent out prior to the filing of the lawsuit. (one) from Mr. Watkins Asst.
Superintendent of Marion Corr. Inst. stating that the canteen items have been
approved per RDU guidelines. (one) from Capt. Faircloth—Internal Affairs—at
Marion Correctional Inst. stating that per Marion CI policy and procedure per
RDU the facility provides inmates a hygiene kit a month. I have spoke to several
of Marion Administration stating that if inmates are housed in the computer as
regular population why are we being treated as if we are on control status/longterm. I feel like inmates are housed in the non-participant block of RDU are
being punished for being non-participants.
(Doc. No. 1 at 3-4). Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages as well as numerous forms of
injunctive and declaratory relief. (Id. at 4).
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review the Complaint
to determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is “frivolous or malicious
2
[or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Furthermore,
§ 1915A requires an initial review of a “complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity,” and the
court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint,
if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. In its
frivolity review, this Court must determine whether the Complaint raises an indisputably
meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or
delusional scenarios. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).
III.
DISCUSSION
The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and
from inhumane conditions of confinement. Williams v. Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756, 761 (4th Cir.
1996). “Prison conditions may be harsh and uncomfortable without violating the Eighth
Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.” Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d
640, 642 (7th Cir. 1997). Rather, extreme deprivations are required, and “only those
deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities are sufficiently grave to
form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992)
(quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991) (internal quotation omitted)). The plaintiff
must allege facts sufficient to support a claim that prison officials knew of and disregarded a
substantial risk of serious harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). A plaintiff must
also generally allege “a serious or significant physical or emotional injury resulting from the
challenged conditions.” Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375, 1381 (4th Cir. 1993).
The Court will dismiss this action for failure to state a claim. Here, even taking
3
Plaintiff’s allegations as true, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not alleged a cognizable claim for
an Eighth Amendment violation. At most, Plaintiff alleges that inmates who are in the
Rehabilitative Diversion Unit (referred to as “the RDU program”) at Marion are deprived of
certain hygiene items that the general population at Marion is allowed to receive.1 Plaintiff
alleges specifically that he has himself suffered from tooth decay because he is not allowed to
use dental floss. Plaintiff’s alleged facts simply do not give rise to an extreme deprivation
denying Plaintiff the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities sufficient to state a claim for
an Eighth Amendment violation. Accord Jones v. Barrett, No. 2:14-cv-00303-GMN, 2014 WL
1340770, at *4 (D. Nev. Apr. 2, 2014) (stating that “[d]epriving an inmate of free dental floss
does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment”). For the reasons stated herein, the Court
finds that Plaintiff has failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants and this
action will therefore be dismissed.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim is dismissed for failure
to state a claim.
This court takes judicial notice that the RDU program was created as a part of NCDPS’s
recent policy reforms regarding restrictive housing in the North Carolina prisons. See Wilcox,
Digard, & Vanko, The Safe Alternatives to Segregation Initiative: Findings and
Recommendations for the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, at p. 3 (Vera Institute of
Justice, Dec. 2016) (“hereinafter “Wilcox Report”), available at https://www.ncdps.gov/safealternatives-segregation-report.1 The RDU program was “designed to help people transition
from Control to regular population through the provision of targeted behavioral programming
and increasing privileges, congregate activity, and out-of-cell time.” (Id.).
1
4
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Complaint, (Doc. No. 1), is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.
2. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action.
Signed: September 29, 2017
5
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?