French v. Snake River Corr. Inst. et al

Filing 53

OPINION AND ORDER: Reading the pleading as liberally as possible and giving plaintiff the benefit of doubt, I find the alleged actions of defendants did not rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of plaintiffs Eighth Amendment right. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 46 is GRANTED. Signed on 8/12/2013 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (sss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PENDLETON DIVISION
TONY FRENCH,
Plaintiff,

v.
SNAKE RIVER CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION; CORP. D. EASLEY;
SUP. M. NOOTH; CAPT. R. REAL;
LT. GILBERTSON; LT. T. JOST;
CO V. VARDANEGA; CORP. C.J. HARDY;
CORP. D. FULWYLER; CO JENNINGS;
CO T. MAZAC; CO A. ARNOLD;
SIU SPECIAL INVESTIGATION UNIT
J. CAPPS; AND INSPECTOR GENERAL
HOTLINE OFFICE MS. P. WEIGEL,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-01259-JO

OPINION AND ORDER

Defendants.

JONES, J.

On October 19,2011, plaintiff Tony French, a prisoner housed at the Snake River
Correctional Institution, filed an amended complaint(# 9) under 42 U.S. C.§ 1983. Plaintiff
alleged that defendants violated his rights under the First and Eighth Amendment by omitting
and fabricating evidence in a misconduct repmi, refusing to provide laundry services and
supplies, harassing him, and tampering with his mail service. I dismissed plaintiffs First
Amendment claims for failure to exhaust. (#42) On June 7, 2013, defendants moved to dismiss

1

Opinion and Order

the two remaining Eighth Amendment claims for failing to state a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b) (6). (# 46) For the following reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
STANDARDS

This court must dismiss an action initiated by a prisoner seeking redress from a
governmental entity or officer or employee, if the court determines that the action (i) is frivolous
or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (e) (2) (B) and
1915 (b).
In order to state a claim, plaintiffs complaint must contain sufficient factual matter
which, when accepted as tlue, gives rise to a plausible inference that defendants violated
plaintiffs constitutional rights. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleas factual content that allows the com't to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d
962, 969 (9 1h Cir. 2009). Because plaintiff is proceeding prose, I construe the pleadings liberally
and afford the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,94 (2007).
A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met.
"First, the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, 'sufficiently serious[;]' a prison official's act
or omission must result in the denial of 'the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities'[.] ...
The second requirement follows from the principle that 'only the unnecessary and wanton
infliction of pain implicates the Eighth Amendment.' To violate the Cruel and Unusual
Punishments Clause, a prison official must have a 'sufficiently culpable state of mind.' In
prison-conditions cases that state of mind is one of'deliberate indifference' to inmate health or

2

Opinion and Order

safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Although prison conditions may be
restrictive and harsh, prison officials must provide prisoners with food, clothing, shelter,
sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981);
Toussaint v. McCarthy. 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir.l986).

DISCUSSION
At issue in this motion are plaintiff's allegations that Corporal Easley violated plaintiff's
Eighth Amendment rights by (1) refusing to provide laundry services and supplies; and (2)
harassing plaintiff by activating a call button that emits a loud sound. These allegations arise out
of a single grievance filed by plaintiff. The grievance relates the following facts: On September
7, 2011, during the swing shift, plaintiff asked Easley to collect his bag of dirty clothes for the
laundry. Instead, Easley walked away without the bag of laundry. At 6 pm that same day,
Easley again walked past the plaintiff's bag oflaundry. At 7:45, plaintiff again asked Easley to
take the laundry bag and this time Easley picked up the bag "like it was contaminated with one
finger of his latex glove," and deposited it in the clothing cart. Later that evening, Easley
activated the in cell call button that emitted an offensive noise in plaintiff's cell. When plaintiff
asked Easley what he wanted, Easley replied that he hadn't done anything. When plaintiff
asserted that Easley had set off the call button, Easley told plaintiff to "shut the hell up."
In essence, plaintiff asserts that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right to be
free from cruel and unusual punishment when Easley failed to collect plaintiff's laundry bag of
ditiy clothes for a few hours, activated a loud in cell call button and verbally abused plaintiff.
These allegations are not "sufficiently serious" to f01m the basis of an Eighth Amendment
violation. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294,298 (1991) ("[O]nly those deprivations denying
the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an
3

Opinion and Order

Eighth Amendment violation." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Here, plaintiff
was not deprived of sanitation services. As noted in his complaint, plaintiffs laundry was
eventually collected and placed in the clothing cart. Furthe1more, a single incident involving the
activation of the in cell call button and an impatient response containing an expletive do not rise
to the level of the "wanton and·unnecessary infliction of pain" contemplated by the Eighth
Amendment. Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to satisfy the first requirement of the
Fmmer test.
Taking as true all the facts alleged by plaintiff, I find his complaint does not satisfy the
objective requirement of the test expressed in Farmer. Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient
factual matter to give rise to a plausible inference that defendants violated plaintiffs Eighth
Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment.

CONCLUSION

Reading the pleading as liberally as possible and giving plaintiff the benefit of doubt, I
find the alleged actions of defendants did not rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment in
violation of plaintiffs Eighth Amendment right. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this --+-l'l""""--t-_ day of August, 2013
-7

4

Opinion and Order