Baldwin v. Hieatt et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon on 1/5/2016. (tvt) [Transferred from Virginia Western on 1/6/2016.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
THOMAS BALDWIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRIAN HIEATT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 7:15cv00244
By: Elizabeth K. Dillon
United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Thomas Baldwin, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, making allegations against staff at Tazewell County
Regional Jail (“TCRJ”) and Lawrenceville Correctional Center (“LCC”). TCRJ is located in the
Western District of Virginia, and LCC is located in the Eastern District of Virginia. The court
will address Baldwin’s allegations against defendants Sheriff Hieatt and Sergeant Lawson at
TCRJ, but transfers Baldwin’s remaining claims against defendants at LCC to the Eastern
District of Virginia. Upon review of his complaint, the court finds that Baldwin’s allegations fail
to state a claim against defendants Hieatt and Lawson and, therefore, dismisses his claims against
these defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
I.
Baldwin alleges that from June 25 to December 10, 2014, while housed at the TCRJ,
defendants Hieatt and Lawson “compelled” him to sleep on the concrete floor with only a
blanket and no mattress. Baldwin alleges that when he asked for a mattress, defendant Hieatt
said he did not have any more and that defendant Lawson said a blanket was all Baldwin would
get from him.

II.
Although the Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from cruel and unusual living
conditions, an inmate is not entitled to relief simply because of exposure to uncomfortable,
restrictive, or inconvenient conditions of confinement. “To the extent that such conditions are
restrictive or even harsh, they are part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their
offenses against society.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981); see also In re Long
Term Administrative Segregation of Inmates Designated as Five Percenters, 174 F.3d 464, 47172 (4th Cir. 1999) (long-term placement in segregation or maximum custody is not cruel and
unusual punishment). To state a claim of constitutional significance regarding prison conditions,
a plaintiff must allege that the living conditions violated contemporary standards of decency and
that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to those conditions. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S.
294 (1991). Only extreme deprivations are adequate to satisfy the objective component of an
Eighth Amendment claim regarding conditions of confinement. In order to demonstrate such an
extreme deprivation, a prisoner “must produce evidence of a serious or significant physical or
emotional injury resulting from the challenged conditions,” Strickler v. Waters, 989 F. 2d 1375,
1381 (4th Cir. 1993), or demonstrate a substantial risk of such serious harm resulting from the
prisoner’s unwilling exposure to the challenged conditions, see Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S.
25, 33-35 (1993). While sleeping on a concrete floor with no mattress for nearly six months may
have been uncomfortable and inconvenient, Baldwin has not alleged that he suffered a serious or
significant physical or emotional injury as a result of the sleeping arrangement. Further, there is
no indication that the sleeping arrangement created a substantial risk of future serious harm.
Accordingly, the court finds that Baldwin fails to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment
against defendants Hieatt and Lawson.
2

The remaining claims describe events and name defendants in the Eastern District of
Virginia. Baldwin generally alleges that LCC staff was deliberately indifferent to Baldwin’s
safety while transporting him in a van and that he was denied adequate medical treatment for
injuries to his head, side, and back. The court may transfer any civil action to another district
where it might have been brought for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or in the
interests of justice. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1404(1). In the exercise of discretion, the court
transfers the remainder of Baldwin’s complaint to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.
Entered: January 5, 2016.

/s/ Elizabeth K. Dillon
Elizabeth K. Dillon
United States District Judge

3