Dunn v. Mitchell et al
Filing
9
ORDER DISMISSING CASE for failure to state a claim. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 01/26/2015. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(jlk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:14-cv-719-FDW
OMAR R. DUNN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
)
FNU MITCHELL, 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 Omar Dunn, a North Carolina state inmate currently incarcerated at
Lanesboro Correctional Institution (“Lanesboro”), in Polkton, North Carolina, filed this action on
December 23, 2014, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the Complaint, Plaintiff names as
Defendants FNU Mitchell, identified as the Superintendent of Lanesboro; FNU Beaver,
identified as “Second in Command” at Lanesboro; FNU Aaron, identified as the Unit Manager of
Lanesboro’s Anson Unit; and H. Davis, identified as the Assistant Unit Manager of Lanesboro’s
Anson Unit. Plaintiff purports to bring a claim for cruel and unusual punishment under the
Eighth Amendment based on his allegation that, while at Lanesboro, he was left outside in the
cold from 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. on October 24, 2014. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges the following
facts in support of his Eighth Amendment claim:
On 10-24-14 I was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. I was left in the
freezing cold from 1 o’clock to 8 o’clock by Mr. Aaron and Ms. H. Davis without
1
a coat or anything[.] I requested to see mental health due to my mother passing
away on 10-22-14 but I was denied and left outside in the rec cage, threw dinner
trays, shift change and all I requested to come insider numerous time[s] because I
was cold and was told Mr. Aaron said let me stay outside. Our blocks came
outside at 1 o’clock and we were supposed to return at 3 o’clock but I was the
only one left outside at 6:33 p.m. Ms. H. Davis came outside and told me that Mr.
Aaron said to leave me outside, she was suppose[d] to get the OIC [officer in
charge] [unintelligible] and requested at that time but she didn’t. I stayed out
there until 8 o’clock and was brung [sic] inside and spoke to the OIC. She didn’t
approve it, I wrote Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Beaver and they ignored my letters and
its [sic] still rights being violated here at Lanesboro and its [sic] being swip [sic]
under the rug.
(Doc. No. 1 at 4). Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief as well as compensatory and
punitive damages. (Id.).
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
[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.
2
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).
Prisoners have an Eighth Amendment right to adequate shelter, including a right to
protection from cold. See Dixon, 114 F.3d at 642. To assess whether cold cell temperatures
constitute cruel and unusual punishment, courts must consider “the severity of the cold; its
duration; whether the prisoner has alternative means to protect himself from the cold; the
adequacy of such alternatives; as well as whether he must endure other uncomfortable conditions
as well as cold.” Id. at 644. The cold need not present an imminent threat to the inmate’s health
to implicate the Eighth Amendment. See id. at 642.
Here, Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to proceed past initial review, as the
allegations of a single, isolated incident in which Plaintiff was left outside in the cold for seven
hours do not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation.1 Although courts have held that
1
In the Step One response to Plaintiff’s grievance about the incident, prison officials responded
to Plaintiff that he “refused to exit the recreation cage with the demands of speaking with
somebody in mental health. You were advised of the procedures for speaking with mental
health, which is to submit a request, at which you became angry and refused to exit. At that
time, it didn’t seem necessary to use force to remove you from the cage, so we decided to leave
3
allowing prisoners to be exposed to extremely cold temperatures over an extended time period
may constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, a single
incident of being left in the cold for seven hours is not an extreme deprivation such that it rises to
the level of cruel and unusual punishment.2 Cf. Palmer v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346, 353 (5th Cir.
1999) (finding that exposure to extreme cold for seventeen hours could constitute an Eighth
Amendment violation); Murphy v. Walker, 51 F.3d 714, 720-21 (7th Cir. 1995) (holding that the
plaintiff prisoner stated an Eighth Amendment claim where he alleged that he spent a week and a
half in a cell without adequate heat, clothing, or bedding); Henderson v. DeRobertis, 940 F.2d
1055, 1058 (7th Cir. 1991) (finding that the deprivation of blankets for four days in extreme cold
could constitute an Eighth Amendment violation); Chandler v. Baird, 926 F.2d 1057, 1063, 1065
(11th Cir. 1991) (reversing summary judgment for defendants on the plaintiff prisoner’s Eighth
Amendment claim that he was housed in his underwear for sixteen days in a sixty-degree cell
without bedding, soap, toothbrush, toothpaste, or, for 2 days, water); McCray v. Burrell, 516
F.2d 357, 367, 369 (4th Cir. 1975) (holding that the plaintiff prisoner stated an Eighth
Amendment claim where he alleged that he spent forty-six hours in a cell without clothing,
mattress, blanket, water, or personal hygiene items).
For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state an Eighth
Amendment claim.
you there until you made the choice to exit on your own free will.” (Doc. No. 3 at 5).
2
Plaintiff does not allege what the temperatures were on the day in question, but the Court takes
judicial notice that the airport in Monroe, North Carolina (about 20 miles from Polkton) reported
temperatures on October 24, 2014, as ranging from 66° F. at 1 p.m. to 57° F. at 8 p.m. See
http://www.friendlyforecast.com/usa/archive/archive.php?region=NC&id=225045&?-ForecastPolkton-North-Carolina&date=20141024000000&sort=hour. These temperatures hardly
constitute extreme cold.
4
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a
claim.
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: January 26, 2015
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?