Roulhac v. Clarke et al
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 11/25/14. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
CLARENCE ROULHAC, JR.,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 3:13CV49-HEH
HAROLD CLARKE, et al9
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss)
Clarence Roulhac, Jr., a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se submitted this 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action.1 Roulhac named the following individuals as defendants: Harold
Clarke, the Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections ("VDOC"); Linda Shear,2
Food Service Director for the VDOC; Carl Marrow, the Regional Food Service Director
for the VDOC; Jeffrey Dillman, Warden of Powhatan Correctional Center ("PCC"); and
L. Hunt, Food Service Director at PCC ("Defendants"). Defendants have filed a Motion
to Dismiss. (ECF No. 19.) Roulhac has replied. For the reasons set forth below, the
Motion to Dismiss will be granted.
The statute provides, in pertinent part:
Every person who, under color of any statute ... of any State ... subjects, or
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law....
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2Roulhac referred to this defendant as "Linda Shields," inhis Complaint. (Compl. 2.) Counsel
for Defendants has provided the proper spelling of her name.
I. Standard for a Motion to Dismiss
"A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint;
importantly, it does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or
the applicability of defenses." Republican Party o/N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952
(4th Cir. 1992) (citing 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 1356 (1990)). In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
a plaintiffs well-pleaded allegations are taken as true and the complaint is viewed in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th
Cir. 1993); see also Martin, 980 F.2d at 952. This principle applies only to factual
allegations, however, and "a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin
by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled
to the assumption of truth." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "require[ ] only 'a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to 'give the defendant
fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" BellAtl Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (second alteration in original) (quoting Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,47 (1957)). Plaintiffs cannot satisfy this standard with complaints
containing only "labels and conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action." Id. (citations omitted). Instead, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient
"to raise a right to relief above the speculative level," id. (citation omitted), stating a
claim that is "plausible on its face," id. at 570, rather than merely "conceivable." Id. "A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court
to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing BellAtl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 556). In order for a claim or
complaint to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, therefore, the plaintiff must
"allege facts sufficient to state all the elements of [his or] her claim." Bass v. E.I DuPont
de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing Dickson v. Microsoft Corp.,
309 F.3d 193, 213 (4th Cir. 2002); lodice v. United States, 289 F.3d 270, 281 (4th
Cir. 2002)). Lastly, while the Court liberally construes pro se complaints, Gordon v.
Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), it will not act as the inmate's advocate and
develop, sua sponte, statutory and constitutional claims that the inmate failed to clearly
raise on the face of his complaint. See Brock v. Carroll, 107 F.3d 241, 243 (4th Cir.
1997) (Luttig, J., concurring); Beaudettv. City ofHampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th
Cir. 1985).
II. Summary of Allegations and Claims
Roulhac is a VDOC inmate confined at PCC. Roulhac's Complaint concerns the
allegedly inadequate food and water at PCC.
A.
The Food
On November 15, 2012, PCC medical staff told Roulhac that he has diabetes.
(Compl. 5.)3 Roulhac contends that he "contracted diabetes and hypertension (high blood
pressure) from the food (diet) at Powhatan Correctional Center." (Id. at 10.) On
•J
The Court employs the pagination assigned to the Complaint by the CM/ECF docketing
system. The Court omits the emphasis and corrects the capitalization, spelling, and punctuation
in the quotations to Roulhac's submissions.
November 19, 2012, PCC medical staff prescribed 500 milligrams of Metformin, to be
taken every 12 hours, for his diabetes. (Id.)
Roulhac insists that Defendants "are responsible for Plaintiff getting
diabetes .... [because] [t]he food for the past six (6) years consisted mainly of processed
meats and other food products. No real meats/food. We get real chicken and turkey on
holidays, Christmas, Thanksgiving, and twice a year on Field days." (Id.) Roulhac
further notes that "[t]here is a very poor variety of vegetables . .. ." (Id.)
Roulhac contends that "defendants are aware that such processed meats and foods
causes cancer, diabetes, and hypertension, and they feed/serve it to the offenders
anyway." (Id.)
The chemical Sodium Nitrate and Sodium Nitrite are used in
processed red meats and meat-products are known health hazards. It is
used in fertilizers, explosives, glass, as a color fixative. As nutrition this
compound added to foods as a preservative (enhances high blood
pressure . ..). Also as a color fixative in pork, fish, and beef products. It's
also implicated in the formation of suspected carcinogens (cancer). Plaintiff
and offenders eat this daily, at least three times a day and it's a known
health hazard, and the defendants realize this.
(Id. at 11.) "Research has linked eating red processed meats and processed food/meats
to an increased risk of heart disease and cancer." (Id. at 12.)
Roulhac attached to his Complaint a copy of the menu at PCC for the week of
December 9, 2012 through December 15, 2012. (ECF No. 1-1, at 10.) Roulhac contends
that menu is generally indicative of what he has been fed at PCC for the last several
years. (Id.) That menu reflects the following:
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
fruit 4oz.,
juice 4oz.,
fruit 4oz.,*
farina 3/4. •
grits'3/4
farina 3/4
cup,
2 boiled
Breakfast
cup,
2 turkey
cup,.
2 boiled
sausage /
eggs,
eggs,
home fries
syrup2 ...
' juice 4oz,
oatmeal 3/4 cup,
cream
.gravy 1/2
margarine,. • oz„ '
. 2 tsp.i . ' margarine • cu>?
coffee 8 . • 2'tsp., '
' margarine
. coffee
2 tsp., ,
oz.,
milk 16 ozl • 8 oz.?
coffee 8
; juice 4oz., • juice 4oz,
oatmeal 3/4.
grits 3/4
farina 3/4
2 pancakes,
2 turkey •'.
2 cooked
sausage
sausage
eggs,,.- ';
gravy 2/3
3/4 cup Of; . . cup,
cup,
links,'
syrup 2 oz.,
hashbrowns
homefries,.
juice 4oz.,
margarine 2
•3/4cup,
2 biscuits,/ :
jelly 1 oz.,
<
2 biscuits,
.hash
browns..3/4
cup;
creak gravy margarine 2 - 2 biscuits,
tsp.,
coffee 8 oz., . .1/2 cup, . . tsp.,";
. margarine
miJk 16 oz.
margarine;."' .coffee 8 pz.,,; 2 tsp.,
"2;tsp.? ;,
coffee 8 oz.,
,:-milk;166z,
,' >
-,*
.
milk:16oz.
-,*•
.';:-
coffee 8
, oz.,
milk 16 oz.
" '
2 Italian
simmered
sausages,
beans 1 1/2
pork
bologna 3
oz.,
carrots 1/2
cups,
greens 1/2
cup,
cup,
cup,
pasta 3/4
2 slices
2 slices
cup,
bread,
bread,
1 serving
1 serving
macaroni
juice 4oz,
cup,
pz. • ;:'
pork
gumbo 8
creole
Saturday
cup;;'.
11/4 cup,
squash 1/2
Lunch
Friday
cup,. ..
milk 16 . ... ;oz.,./. "''
- milk 1.6 oz,
.' . * -•
Thursday
homefries 3/4
links, ,' ; •hashbrowns
3/4 cup,
3/4 cup,
• 2' •
2.biscuits, • ,. pancakes,: 2;biscuits,
jelly loz;,
Wednesday
•
turkey ham
oz.,
vegetable
soup 1 cup,
2 grilled
mac and
potato salad
cheese
salad leup,
cheese 1/2
1 cup,
sandwiches, 1
coleslaw 1
cup,
coleslaw
serving of
cup,
2 slices of
greens 1/2
1/2 cup,
fruit,
1 sandwich
bread,
cup,
1 sandwich
8oz.
bun,
beverage,
3 oz.,
potato
fruit,
fruit,
mustard 2
2 slices of
bun,
beverage
beverage 8
tsp.,
bread,
mustard 1
oz.,
8oz.
oz.
1 serving of
fruit,
margarine 2
oz.}
tsp.,
1 serving of
fruit,
Beverage 8
1 serving
of fruit,
beverage 8
1 serving of
oz.
fruit,
beverage 8
mustard 1
beverage 8
oz.
oz.
C\7 .
uz.
Dinner
,. , sea fried,.
1 cajun
patty,
rice 8 oz.,
. .
1 cajun patty,
;l#CUp,
baked sweet''
carrots 1/2.'' cabbage 1/2
baked
sweet
.yakisoba 1
-'.cups, '
.
potato 2/3
2 dinner
, rolls,
greens 1/2
fruit 1/2 \:
. cup,.
rolls,
2 .cookies,
potato 1/2
' cup, ,
butternut
squash 1/2
,cup,'.
margarine
rolls,; . ; .; 1 OZ., .
1 piece of.. , beverage 8
2 dinner
cabbage 1/2 - potato 1 cup, . spaghetti 1
cup, ."
cabbage 1/2 ;• 1/2 cups,
potatoes 3/4 cup, ,
1/2 cup of
2 slices of,
greens,
.,cup/.;'-:,
•-. = dinner.
e2
2 dinner rolls, "rolls,,.-
tsp./
2 cookies
beverage 8
gravy 1/4
.oz;
cup,
,
. rritustard 1
oz.,
, 1 piece of
cake,
oz.
margarine 2
gravy, 1/4
•.
tsp,
cake,
beverage 8
beverage 8
bz,'
CUJ?,,.
margarine
2 tsp,
beverage 8
oz.
;
'
" • '".
' •'
oz.
meat sauce
hamburgers",' ; baked sweet .3/4"cup, ,
margarine 2
cup,
cup, >
cup,
2 dinner
; 3',;;;;' .... t . 2 .sausages,... •.
*> bread,;' .;v
'., 2 slices of i
bread, .
..cake,-,. " ;.- , 2 cookies,
1 piece of,
. margarine^'
beverage 8
margarine
2 tsp,
beverage 8
oz.
oz.
tsp,
Roulhac alleges, and the menu reflects, that the VDOC provides a "cardiac alternative
entree" of 1 1/2 cups of navy or pinto beans for noon and evening meals. (Id.) Roulhac
complains that, "If you don't eat meat, you have to eat beans twice a day, every day!"
(Id.)
Roulhac attached to his Complaint, a pamphlet published by the VDOC, which
informs inmates with diabetes how to eat healthy. (ECF 1-1, at 11-12.) The pamphlet
informs diabetic inmates as to what food to avoid and encourages inmates to "ask for the
diabetic tray at every meal" (Id. at ll.)4
B.
The Water
Roulhac complains that "the water at PCC is contaminated too! Warning signs
are posted in the PCC Visitation Room, and C/O's and staff are told to bring water from
home or buy it from the vendor." (Compl. 14.)
II. Analysis
To make out an Eighth Amendment claim, an inmate must allege facts that
indicate (1) that objectively the deprivation suffered or harm inflicted "was 'sufficiently
serious,' and (2) that subjectively the prison officials acted with a 'sufficiently culpable
state of mind.'" Johnson v. Quinones, 145 F.3d 164, 167 (4th Cir. 1998) (quoting Wilson
4Inhis Complaint, Roulhac fails to specify what food is provided onthe diabetic tray. Inhis
Reply (ECF No. 23), Roulhac notes that "[s]even days a week Plaintiff gets boiled eggs, bread
and milk for breakfast, beans twice a day with bread and milk at evening meal and over-cooked
carrots or squash." (Reply 3.)
In his Reply, Roulhac also complains that he was denied several diabetic meals during
shakedowns (id.), and that the living conditions in his cell block are unconstitutional (id at 8).
Roulhac, however, has failed to move to amend his Complaint to raise any new claims for relief.
Accordingly, the Court will not further consider the above described allegations. See Williams v.
Harvey, No. 4:05CV161, 2006 WL 2456406, at *6 (E.D. Va. Aug. 21, 2006)).
v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Under the objective prong, the inmate must allege
facts that suggest that the deprivation complained of was extreme and amounted to more
than the "'routine discomfort'" that is "'part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for
their offenses against society.'" Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375, 1380 n.3 (4th Cir.
1993) (quoting Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992)). "In order to demonstrate
such an extreme deprivation, a prisoner must allege 'a serious or significant physical or
emotional injury resulting from the challenged conditions.'" De 'Lonta v. Angelone, 330
F.3d 630, 634 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Strickler, 989 F.2d at 1381).
The subjective prong of a deliberate indifference claim requires the plaintiff to
allege facts that indicate a particular defendant actually knew of and disregarded a
substantial risk of serious harm to his person. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837
(1994). "Deliberate indifference is a very high standard—a showing of mere negligence
will not meet it." Grayson v. Peed, 195 F.3d 692,695 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976)).
[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for
denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official
knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the
official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be
drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw
the inference.
Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Farmer teaches "that general knowledge of facts creating a
substantial risk of harm is not enough. The prison official must also draw the inference
between those general facts and the specific risk of harm confronting the inmate."
Quinones, 145 F.3d at 168 (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837); see Rich v. Bruce, 129 F.3d
336, 338 (4th Cir. 1997) (stating same). Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss, the
deliberate indifference standard requires a plaintiff to assert facts sufficient to form an
inference that "the official in question subjectively recognized a substantial risk of harm"
and "that the official in question subjectively recognized that his actions were
'inappropriate in light of that risk.'" Parrish ex rel. Lee v. Cleveland, 372 F.3d 294, 303
(4th Cir. 2004) (quoting Rich, 129 F.3d at 340 n.2).
Roulhac fails to allege facts that indicate that he sustained "'a serious or
significant physical or emotional injury resulting from'" the water at PCC. De 'Lonta v.
Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 634 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Strickler, 989 F.2d at 1381).
Therefore, his Eighth Amendment claim challenging the condition of the water at PCC
must be dismissed.
Furthermore, Roulhac fails to satisfy either the objective or subjective component
for his complaints about the food at PCC. "The Eighth Amendment requires that inmates
be provided 'well-balanced meal[s], containing sufficient nutritional value to preserve
health.'" Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999) (alteration in original) (some
internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Green v. Ferrell, 801 F.2d 765, 770 (5th Cir.
1986)); see also Wilson v. Johnson, 385 F. App'x 319, 320 (4th Cir. 2010) (citing cases
for proposition that Eighth Amendment requires nutritionally adequate food). Moreover,
"with respect to the objective factor,.... [the Eighth Amendment] requires a court to
assess whether society considers the risk that the prisoner complains of to be so grave
that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to such a
risk." Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 36 (1993). The sample menu provided by
8
Roulhac, with its non-meat entree option and a variety of food to eat at every meal, fails
to raise risks so grave that "it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose
anyone unwillingly to such a risk." Id.
Moreover, although Roulhac contends that the menu at PCC caused his diabetes
and hypertension, he fails to allege facts that plausibly suggest that the past or present
menu choices at his prison posed or pose a substantial risk of serious harm, much less
that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference. The record reflects that Defendants
counseled inmates regarding suitable menu choices for managing diabetes and have
offered and currently offer beans as a substitute for the processed meats that Roulhac
believes constitute a substantial threat to his health. See Mullins v. Cranston, Nos. 97-
4492, 98-3188, 1999 WL 1206930, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 9, 1999) (dismissing action
where inmate could select items from the menu that would manage his diabetes).
Roulhac cannot contend Defendants bear the sole constitutional liability for his health
problem because he failed to regularly partake of the bean option. Cf Farmer, 511 U.S.
844 (observing that even when prison officials actually know "of a substantial risk to
inmate health or safety may be found free from liability if they responded reasonably to
the risk, even if the harm ultimately was not averted"). While Roulhac finds it offensive
to eat a lot a beans and boiled eggs, the "Eighth Amendment requires only that prisoners
receive food that is adequate to maintain health; it need not be tasty or aesthetically
pleasing." LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Cunningham
v. Jones, 567 F.2d 653, 659-60 (6th Cir. 1977)). Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 19) will be granted.
III.
Conclusion
Roulhac's claims and the action will be dismissed.
Roulhac's Motion for the
Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 26) and Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 25)
will be denied.
An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
&M.
/s/
HENRY E.HUDSON
Date: 1^.2.5 gfl/y
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Richmond, Virginia
10
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?