Opinion
Civil Action No. 99-3283-KHV.
July 20, 2000.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Willie J. Simkins brings suit against the Saline County Sheriff's Department and the Saline County Jail under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his constitutional rights by denying him adequate medical care, providing unsanitary and overcrowded living conditions, and denying him access to a law library. This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. #16) filed April 10, 2000. Plaintiff has not responded. For this reason, see D. Kan. Rule 7.4, and on the merits, the motion is sustained.
Plaintiff does not identify any constitutional rights which defendants allegedly violated. Based on his allegations, the Court construes his complaint as alleging a violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and a violation of his right of access to the courts.
D. Kan. Rule 7.4 provides in part that, "if a respondent fails to file a response within the time required by Rule 7.1(b), the motion will be considered and decided as an uncontested motion."
Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); accord Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986); Smith v. Midland Brake Inc., 138 F.3d 1304, 1307 (10th Cir. 1998). The moving party bears the initial burden of showing that there is an absence of any genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. A "genuine" factual dispute requires more than a mere scintilla of evidence. Id. at 252.
In considering a summary judgment motion the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Tom v. First Am. Credit Union, 151 F.3d 1289, 1291 (10th Cir. 1998). Summary judgment may be granted, however, if the nonmoving party's evidence is merely colorable or is not significantly probative. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250-1. Thus, "`[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party,' summary judgment in favor of the moving party is proper." Thomas v. IBM, 48 F.3d 478, 484 (10th Cir. 1995) (quotingMatsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)).
In pro se prisoner litigation, the Tenth Circuit endorses the completion and filing of a "Martinez report" where the prison constructs an administrative record detailing the factual investigation of the events at issue. See Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317, 319 (10th Cir. 1978). The Martinez report "is treated like an affidavit, and the court is not authorized to accept the factual findings of the prison investigation when the plaintiff has presented conflicting evidence." Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296, 1302 (10th Cir. 1997) (citing Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1111 (10th Cir. 1991)). The pro se prisoner's complaint, when sworn and made under a penalty of perjury, is also treated as an affidavit and, like the Martinez report, serves as evidence for a summary judgment determination. See id.
Factual Background
Because plaintiff has not responded to defendants' motion, the Court views defendants' allegations as admitted under D. Kan. Rule 56.1. This rule provides that
All material facts set forth in the statement of the movant shall be deemed admitted for the purpose of summary judgment unless specifically controverted by the statement of the opposing party.
In addition to defendants' uncontroverted facts, the Court gleans further relevant facts from plaintiff's sworn complaint. See Mosier v. Maynard, 937 F.2d 1521, 1524 (10th Cir. 1995).
At the time of the incidents in question, plaintiff was incarcerated in the Saline County Jail. Around July 23, 1999, Simkins slipped and fell coming out of the shower and injured his back. On July 30, he first complained of back pain to the prison nurse, Debra Matson, L.P.N. He again complained on August 4, and Nurse Matson told him that he would be referred to Stat Care, an emergency care clinic. Simkins was taking Ibuprofin for pain and sleeping on two mattresses in his cell. Simkins complained of continuous back pain two more times before Nurse Matson completed a "Request for Medical Treatment" form on August 18. A physician at Stat Care examined Simkins on August 24, one day after he filed his complaint with the Court.
The Saline County Jail follows a policy which provides that prison officials will solicit prisoners' medical complaints daily and that qualified medical personnel will follow up on the complaints three days a week. If a prisoner requests medical treatment, prison officials put him on a nurse s list for review. Each inmate becomes familiar with the process for requesting medical services through reading the Saline County Jail Inmate Handbook, and from the booking officer during orientation. In order to request medical care, an inmate must complete an "Inmate to Staff Member Request" form. Though Simkins never completed such a request form, Nurse Matson examined him at least three times before he filed his complaint.
Simkins alleges that the jail was overcrowded, that food trays were unsanitary, that 18 men were forced to sleep in a twelve-man cell and that men in their fifties and sixties were forced to sleep on the floor. Affidavits of several prison officials report that no more than 14 men were ever housed in a twelve-man cell and that each man was provided his own mattress. The Policies and Procedures Manual of the Saline County Sheriff's Department provides that inmates have the right to eat wholesome, properly prepared meals on washed and sterilized serving trays. Affidavits of prison officials report that if an inmate receives molded food or a dirty food tray, he can request to have it replaced.
Inmates who have grievances such as these are encouraged to file "Inmate to Staff Member Request" forms to communicate potential problems to prison officials. Simkins filed no such request form before filing his complaint with the Court.
Simkins alleges that defendants deprived him of legal resources and refused to make legal copies when he requested them. The Saline County Jail does not have a law library, but prison officials offered to retrieve legal resources for Simkins. Sometime before February 17, 1999, Simkins asked a staff member to make three legal copies for him. He did not file a request for these copies. When he received only one of the requested documents, he filed an "Inmate to Staff Member Request" form and prison officials made the other two copies on February 17. The Policies and Procedures Manual which applies to the Saline County Jail states that the law does not require county jails to have law libraries, legal books, Kansas statutes or federal statutes.
Analysis
I. Improper Party
Defendants ask the Court to dismiss plaintiff's claim against the Saline County Sheriff's Department because it is not a proper party. The Saline County Sheriff's Department is merely an agency of the county, Farris v. Board of County Comm'rs, 924 F. Supp. 1041, 1045 (D. Kan. 1996) (citing Owens v. Rush, 636 F.2d 283, 286 (10th Cir. 1980)), and is not itself capable of being sued. Wright v. Wyandotte County Sheriff's Dep't, 963 F. Supp. 1029, 1034 (D. Kan. 1997). The Court agrees that the sheriff's department is entitled to dismissal as a matter of law.
Because defendants did not raise the issue, the Court need not decide if the Saline County Jail is entitled to dismissal as an agency of the county. The Court sustains the Saline County Jail's motion for summary judgment on other grounds.
II. Policy or Custom
Defendant argues that plaintiff has not shown that the Saline County Jail had a policy or custom of delaying medical care, providing unsanitary living conditions or denying law library materials to inmates. As the Tenth Circuit has stated,
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a local government may be held liable for the constitutional violation of its employees only when employee "action pursuant to official municipal policy . . . caused a constitutional tort." Therefore, "to establish municipal liability a plaintiff must show (1) the existence of a municipal custom or policy and (2) a direct causal link between the custom or policy and the violation alleged."Anaya v. Crossroads Managed Care Sys., Inc., 195 F.3d 584, 592 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting Hollingsworth v. Hill, 110 F.3d 733, 742 (10th Cir. 1997)).
Plaintiff must show that the jail had a policy or custom of providing inadequate medical care or living conditions, or denying inmates the right to legal resources. The record evidence shows exactly the opposite: the Policies and Procedures Manual includes specific policies on inmate medical care, living conditions and obtaining legal resources. Because plaintiff cannot show that defendant relied on a widespread policy or custom in violation of his constitutional tights, his Section 1983 claim will not stand and defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In addition, as discussed below, even if defendant acted pursuant to a county policy or custom, no reasonable jury would find that its conduct was unconstitutional.
III. Inadequate Medical Care
Plaintiff's allegation that jail officials provided him inadequate medical care does not rise to a constitutional violation. The Eighth Amendment establishes in its principles the government's obligation to provide medical care to those whom it incarcerates. Because of the potential for "pain and suffering which no one suggests would serve any penological purpose," it is unconstitutional to deny medical care to an incarcerated person. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976). To state a cause of action under Section 1983, plaintiff must show that defendant acted with "deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious illness or injury." Id. at 104. An inadvertent delay or negligent diagnosis will not satisfy the deliberate indifference needed to allege a medical wrong under the Eighth Amendment. See Riddle v. Mondragon, 83 F.3d 1197, 1203 (10th Cir. 1996).
Furthermore, because plaintiff was examined by a physician just days after filing his complaint, he must show that the jail's delay in taking him to a doctor resulted in substantial harm. See Smith v. Harvey Cty. Jail, 889 F. Supp. 426, 430 (D. Kan. 1995) (citing Olson v. Stotts, 9 F.3d 1475, 1477 (10th Cir. 1993)). Plaintiff does not allege, nor does the evidence indicate, that jail officials were indifferent to his condition. The prison nurse examined Simkins on four occasions in a two week period, and recommended Ibuprofin for his back pain. Plaintiff provides no evidence that the delay in seeing a doctor resulted in any substantial harm or worsening of his condition. The doctor at Stat Care put plaintiff on prescription medication for his pain, and plaintiff provides no evidence that his condition has not improved. Because plaintiff was examined by a doctor and plaintiff has not shown that any delay caused by prison officials resulted in substantial harm, he has not stated a violation of the Eighth Amendment for inadequate medical care. Therefore the Saline County Jail is entitled to summary judgment on this count.
IV. Overcrowding And Unsanitary Living Conditions
Plaintiff's allegation of jail overcrowding is insufficient to amount to a violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. Conditions of confinement in government facilities "must not involve the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain, nor may they be grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime warranting imprisonment." Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981); see also Clemmons v. Bohannon, 918 F.2d 858 (10th Cir. 1990). Such violative conditions "may deprive inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347. Courts use a variety of factors in determining the constitutionality of overcrowded facilities. The number of square feet per inmate in a cell, the length of time of confinement, and the number of hours spent in the crowded cell per day are all factors to be considered.See Campbell v. Cauthron, 623 F.2d 503 (8th Cir. 1980) (inmates confined to their cells for more than sixteen hours a day are entitled to 32-38 square feet per person, those confined to these conditions for more than one week are entitled to 43-51 square feet per person, and those who are released from their cells for eight or more hours per day are entitled to 22-27 square feet per person).
Plaintiff's complaint states that defendant placed up to 18 men in a twelve-man cell. Jail officials dispute this claim and state that no more than 14 men were placed in a twelve-man cell at any time. Plaintiff does not provide specific information with respect to the size of the overcrowded cell or the length of time 18 men slept in the cell.
On this record, a reasonable jury could not find the alleged conditions unconstitutional. If plaintiffs allegation of overcrowding is taken as true, he must show that he suffered a significant physical or mental injury resulting from the overcrowded conditions.See Counts v. Newhart, 951 F. Supp. 579, 586 (E.D. Va. 1996) (ten-man cell block holding twenty-nine men does not amount to Eighth Amendment violation where no actual injury shown); see also Campbell, 623 F.2d at 506 (effect on prisoners' mental states shown by three suicide attempts in overcrowded cell). Plaintiff does not allege, however, that the overcrowding affected him in any way. In fact, record evidence shows that plaintiff was sleeping on two mattresses because of his recurring back problems. While the Constitution is designed to prevent prison conditions that offend the standards of decency, it never mandates or guarantees comfortable prisons. See Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 349.
Plaintiff also alleges that jail officials served meals on unsanitary food trays and occasionally served molded bread. These allegations do not amount to constitutional violations. If the prison officials served food in an unsanitary manner in violation of the jail policy, the results would not "inflict unnecessary or wanton pain" on prisoners. Id. at 347. Plaintiff admits in his complaint that any molded food would be replaced, consistent with the jail policy, if a prisoner made such a request. See Complaint (Doc. #1) filed August 23, 1999 at 2. Because plaintiff's allegations of inadequate living conditions do not amount to constitutional violations, defendant is entitled to summary judgment on this count.
V. Restricted Access To Courts
Plaintiff's allegation that defendant deprived him of access to the courts does not amount to a constitutional claim. Prison authorities must "assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law." Smith, 889 F. Supp. 426, 431 (D.Kan. 1995) (quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977)). However, the Supreme Court has never recognized a prisoner's independent right of access to a law library.See Penrod v. Zavaras, 94 F.3d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir. 1996) (citingLewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996)). The inmate must also show that he sustained "actual injury" in being denied access to the courts in that his efforts to pursue a non-frivolous claim were hindered. See Penrod, 94 F.3d at 1403. If the jail officials provide an effective way for prisoners to establish contact with the courts, the "inmates do not have the right to select the method by which access is provided." Id.
In his complaint, plaintiff admits that jail officials offered to perform legal research for him if he requested that they look up certain case names or citations. See Complaint (Doc. #1) filed August 23, 1999 at 4. Jail officials also told plaintiff that he could obtain any legal documents through his attorney. Though plaintiff is representing himself in the present action, he did have an attorney representing him in another action (Case No. 99-3095-KHV) at the time the present complaint was filed. Plaintiff's right of access to the court was adequately protected by his attorney, even if he was denied such access by the jail. See Smith, 889 F. Supp. at 431 (citingSkelton v. Pri-Cor., Inc., 963 F.2d 100, 104 (6th Cir. 1991)). Further, plaintiff fails to show "actual injury" to any case in which he was involved. Here, plaintiff filed his action without the assistance of an attorney or the luxury of a law library.
Plaintiff also alleges that jail officials refused to make legal photocopies for him resulting in denial of access to the courts. The Court notes that initially, plaintiff did not file the proper "Inmate to Staff Member Request" form to obtain the copies. After filing such a request, plaintiff received the copies within one day. Plaintiff does not suggest that this delay prejudiced him in any way. Because plaintiff's allegation that he was denied access to a law library does not amount to a constitutional claim, and his allegation that officials refused to make legal copies for him is not grounded in fact, the Saline County Jail is entitled to summary judgment on the claim that plaintiff was denied access to the courts.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. #16) filed April 10, 2000 be and hereby is SUSTAINED.