Jefferson v. Pepin et al
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
PEPIN, et al.,
LEONARD C. JEFFERSON,
C.A. No. 16-016 WES
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
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
Plaintiff’s thirty-page objection to the R&R largely restates
exception of one pertinent legal argument.
Plaintiff takes issue
with the R&R’s conclusion that his proposed Eighth Amendment claim
(Pl.’s Obj. to R&R 10-12, ECF No. 45.)
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
As Plaintiff details in his Proposed Amended Complaint, he
(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.)
explained that Plaintiff must address medical problems through
proper procedures, not the grievance system.
Thus, Defendants did
condition; Defendants investigated Plaintiff’s cell conditions and
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.
After careful consideration, the Court ACCEPTS the R&R (ECF
Plaintiff’s Motion To Amend (ECF No. 27).
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
Date: November 9, 2017
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?