Jefferson v. Pepin et al

Filing 51

ORDER denying 27 Motion to Amend; adopting 36 Report and Recommendations, and ordering plaintiff to file any opposition to the defendants' pending Motions to Dismiss (ECF #s 22 and 35) on or before 11/24/17. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 11/9/2017. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff
)
v.
)
)
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
)
PEPIN, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)
LEONARD C. JEFFERSON,

C.A. No. 16-016 WES

ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Magistrate
Recommendation

Judge

Lincoln

(“R&R”)

on

D.

Almond

January

26,

filed
2017

a

Report

(ECF

No.

and
36),

recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff Leonard C. Jefferson’s
Motion to Amend his Complaint (ECF No. 27).

Plaintiff filed his

Objection to the R&R (ECF No. 45), and Defendants Pepin, et al.
filed their Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF
No. 46).
Plaintiff’s thirty-page objection to the R&R largely restates
the

allegations

of

his

Proposed

Amended

exception of one pertinent legal argument.

Complaint,

with

the

Plaintiff takes issue

with the R&R’s conclusion that his proposed Eighth Amendment claim
is futile.

(Pl.’s Obj. to R&R 10-12, ECF No. 45.)

Relying on

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842 (1994), Plaintiff contends
that Defendants’ knowledge of his cell condition sufficiently

alleges their deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s suffering,
which is enough to make out a claim for an Eighth Amendment
violation. (Pl.’s Obj. to R&R 10-12.) However, Plaintiff misreads
the Farmer test.

Under Farmer, a prisoner must allege that a

prison official “acted or failed to act despite his knowledge of
a substantial risk of serious harm,” to establish deliberate
indifference, a violation of the Eighth Amendment.

511 U.S. at

842.

As Plaintiff details in his Proposed Amended Complaint, he

filed

a

two

grievances

with

officials

prison

officials

investigated

the

about

his

cell

matter

on

both

conditions,

and

occasions.

(Pl.’s Proposed Am. Compl. 15–16, ECF No. 27-1.)

Plaintiff received responses to both grievances, explaining that
officials checked his cell conditions and found no temperature
difference from adjacent cells.

(Level One Grievance, ECF No. 27-

2, 5; Level Two Grievance, ECF No. 27-2, 6.)

Both responses

explained that Plaintiff must address medical problems through
proper procedures, not the grievance system.
not

“fail

to

act

despite

[their]

Thus, Defendants did

knowledge”

of

Plaintiff’s

condition; Defendants investigated Plaintiff’s cell conditions and
determined

the

allegation

unfounded.

Therefore,

Plaintiff’s

Proposed Amended Complaint fails to allege Defendants’ deliberate
indifference, and this Court agrees with the R&R’s conclusion that
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claim is futile.
2

After careful consideration, the Court ACCEPTS the R&R (ECF
No.

36)

and

ADOPTS

the

recommendations

therein,

Plaintiff’s Motion To Amend (ECF No. 27).

and

DENIES

The Court ORDERS

Plaintiff to file any opposition to Defendants’ pending Motions to
Dismiss his First Amended Complaint (ECF Nos. 22 and 35), if he
has not already, within fourteen days of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: November 9, 2017

3