Opinion
Case No. 2:00-CV-670.
July 28, 2004
ORDER
Plaintiff, Charles Allen, an inmate at the Utah State Prison, filed an amended civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.See 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2003). On July 10, 2003, the Court granted summary judgment to all defendants except O'Bray and Zeeman. The Court concluded that a genuine issue of material fact remained concerning whether Defendants violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights by denying him running water from August 19 to 26, 1998. With the Court's permission Defendants deposed Plaintiff at the Utah State Prison on September 5, 2003. Plaintiff then served several discovery requests upon Defendants who refused to comply, asserting that the requests are improper under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26. On April 9, 2004, the Court ordered Defendants to show cause why they should not be required to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests. In conjunction with their response to the Court's order to show cause Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining issues in this case. Plaintiff has responded to Defendants' motion which is now properly before the Court.
ANALYSIS a. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In applying this standard, the Court must "examine the factual record and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Lopez v. LeMaster, 172 F.3d 756, 759 (10th Cir. 1999). "Where the nonmovant will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, however, that party must go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts so as to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence, as a triable issue, of an element essential to that party's case in order to survive summary judgment." Id.b. Legal Standard for "Conditions of Confinement" Claim
The Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment requires that prison officials "provide humane conditions of confinement by ensuring that inmates receive the basic necessities of adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care and by taking reasonable measures to guarantee inmates' safety." Craig v. Eberly, 164 F.3d 490, 495 (10th Cir. 1998). However, the Eighth Amendment "`does not mandate comfortable prisons,' and conditions imposed may be `restrictive and even harsh'" without amounting to a constitutional violation.Barney v. Pulsipher, 143 F.3d 1299, 1311 (10th Cir. 1998) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2402 (1981)).An Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim consists of both an objective and subjective component. The objective component is met only if the condition complained of is "sufficiently serious." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1976 (1994). A condition is sufficiently serious if it poses "a substantial risk of serious harm" to the inmate.Id. Because the sufficiency of a conditions-of-confinement claim depends upon "the particular facts of each situation; the `circumstances, nature, and duration' of the challenged conditions must be carefully considered." Despain v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965, 974 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000)). "While no single factor controls . . . the length of exposure to the conditions is often of prime importance." Id. As the severity of the conditions to which an inmate is exposed increases, the length of exposure required to make out a constitutional violation decreases. Accordingly, "minor deprivations suffered for short periods would not rise to an Eighth Amendment violation, while substantial deprivations . . . may meet the standard despite a shorter duration." Id.
The subjective component of a conditions-of-confinement claim requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant exhibited "deliberate indifference" to the inmate's health or safety.Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832. Deliberate indifference "requires both knowledge and disregard of possible risks, a mens rea on a par with criminal recklessness." Despain v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965, 975 (10th Cir. 2001). The defendant 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.
c. Summary Judgment Analysis
The only issue before the Court is whether defendants O'Bray and Zeeman violated Plaintiff's constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by deliberately housing him in a cell with no running water for a significant period of time. There are three aspects to this issue which the Court will address separately. First, whether Plaintiff was exposed to unsanitary conditions for a significant time period due to the lack of a working toilet in his cell. Second, whether Plaintiff had adequate drinking water during the time in question. And third, whether Plaintiff was denied adequate personal hygiene because of a lack of water in his cell.
i. Malfunctioning Toilet
The Court first considers whether Plaintiff was deprived of a working toilet for a constitutionally significant period of time. Plaintiff admits in his deposition that when he was transferred into cell 404 on August 19, 1998, the toilet in that cell was working properly. According to Plaintiff, on August 25, 1998, Defendant Zeeman came to his cell with a medical technician to give Plaintiff his blood pressure medication. Plaintiff told the med tech that he had no way to take the pills because there was no water running to his sink, he then asked Zeeman to temporarily turn on the water so he could take his medication. Plaintiff states that Zeeman then opened the utility closet and instead of turning on the water to the sink he turned off the water to Plaintiff's toilet. When Plaintiff complained that Zeeman had turned off the toilet Zeeman allegedly ignored Plaintiff and walked away. The following day a maintenance technician serviced Plaintiff's sink and restored all water to Plaintiff's cell.
Courts have been especially cautious about condoning conditions requiring an inmate to be close to human waste. "Exposure to human waste, like few other conditions of confinement, evokes both the health concerns emphasized in Farmer and the more general standards of dignity embodied in the Eighth Amendment."Despain, 264 F.3d at 974. However, this does not mean that any exposure to human waste, no matter how brief or remote will state an Eighth Amendment claim.
Plaintiff's deposition clearly shows that the water to Plaintiff's toilet was only off for approximately one day. There is no evidence that Plaintiff was directly exposed to human waste during this time. Although Plaintiff had to endure the odor from the malfunctioning toilet, there is no indication that the toilet ever overflowed or threatened Plaintiff's safety in any way. Such limited exposure to human waste hardly amounts to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Courts have repeatedly held that much longer periods of exposure to far worse conditions than those demonstrated by Plaintiff fail to state a claim. See, e.g., Johnson v. Pelker, 891 F.2d 136, 139 (7th Cir. 1989) (involving three days in cell with feces smeared on walls); Whitnack v. Douglas County, 16 F.3d 954, 958 (8th Cir. 1994) (allowing "deplorably filthy and patently offensive" cell with excrement and vomit because conditions lasted for only twenty-four hours); White v. Nix, 7 F.3d 120, 121 (8th Cir. 1993) (eleven-day stay in unsanitary cell not unconstitutional because of relative brevity of stay and availability of cleaning supplies); Harris v. Fleming, 839 F.2d 1232, 1235-36 (7th Cir. 1988) (deciding five-day stay in "filthy, roach-infested cell" not unconstitutional).
There is also no evidence that Defendant Zeeman acted with deliberate indifference when he allegedly turned off the water to Plaintiff's toilet. Although Plaintiff recalls telling Zeeman he had turned off the water to the toilet, Plaintiff states that Zeeman did not respond in any way. Based on the evidence presented one could reasonably conclude that Zeeman simply turned the wrong valve by accident and was distracted when Plaintiff attempted to inform him of the mistake. Accordingly, the Court concludes that there is no genuine issue of material fact on the question of whether Plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated by being deprived of a working toilet, therefore, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this issue.
ii. Access to Drinking Water
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment by denying him adequate drinking water for a period of approximately seven days. Plaintiff's deposition states that when he was transferred to cell 404 he immediately tested the sink by pushing both the hot and cold buttons on the faucet but found that no water came out. Plaintiff then told Defendant O'Bray about the problem with the sink and even demonstrated the problem for him by pushing the buttons on the faucet again. According to Plaintiff, O'Bray responded by saying: "We don't have no other cell to put you in. You're going to remain in this cell." However, O'Bray also told Plaintiff that he would notify maintenance about the problem with the sink. The following day Plaintiff asked O'Bray whether a work order had been submitted and O'Bray said that he had called maintenance. This was apparently the last contact Plaintiff had with O'Bray regarding the problem with his sink. The sink was not repaired until August 26, 1998.
Defendants make two primary arguments to rebut Plaintiff's allegation that he was deprived of adequate drinking water from August 19 to 26, 1998: First, Defendants argue that Plaintiff did, in fact, have access to cold water from his sink. Defendants have submitted a recent picture of the plumbing to cell 404, along with the declarations of two prison employees, indicating that the cold water supply to Plaintiff's sink could not have been turned off independently of the water supply to the toilet. Because Plaintiff admitted in his deposition that the toilet in his cell was working until August 25th, when Zeeman allegedly turned off the cold water supply to Plaintiff's cell, Defendants argue there is strong evidence that cold water was running to Plaintiff's sink during the entire time that his toilet was working. Defendants also argue that because the maintenance logs show that the sink in cell 404 was ultimately only adjusted, and not replaced as required for totally inoperative faucets, it must have been working at least partially.
Defendants' argument assumes that the plumbing has not been changed since the alleged incident. Although Plaintiff asserts that the plumbing may have been changed since the incident he has not provided any evidence to support that argument.
Second, Defendants argue that even if Plaintiff did not have unlimited access to drinking water in his cell he nevertheless received adequate hydration to satisfy constitutional requirements. Defendants have submitted evidence showing that during the time Plaintiff's sink was allegedly malfunctioning he received three meals per day with beverages and he was allowed out of his cell to shower three times. Furthermore, Defendants point out that Plaintiff never requested medical care for dehydration or any related ailment during the time in question.
The Court is aware of only one case where an inmate was held without direct access to drinking water for more than a week but nevertheless failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim. InReeves v. Lane, 610 F. Supp. 847 (N.D. Ill. 1985), the court granted summary judgment against a prisoner who was housed for eight days in a cell without drinking water. The court found that despite the lack of water in his cell the plaintiff in that case received adequate hydration because he was allowed out of his cell for three hours each day to go to the gymnasium where he had unlimited access to drinking water, he was allowed to take a shower every day for thirty minutes, he had a visitor one evening who gave him a soda, and he visited the medical unit on two occasions for matters unrelated to dehydration. Id. at 848.
The Court finds that the facts of this case compel the same conclusion reached in Reeves. Although Plaintiff may not have had unlimited access to drinking water in his cell, the evidence does not support the conclusion that Plaintiff's health or safety were jeopardized in any way. The only evidence suggesting that Plaintiff suffered any significant deprivation is his self-serving declaration that he experienced dehydration, headaches, stomach pain and difficulty swallowing. It is uncontested that these self-reported difficulties were not serious enough to lead Plaintiff to request any medical care. Nor is there any suggestion that Plaintiff's access to beverages was limited at meal times. In light of these undisputed facts, Plaintiff's declaration simply is not sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the lack of water over this limited period of time was so serious as create a constitutional deprivation, let alone whether the lack of water amounted to deliberate indifference. Thus, the Court concludes that Plaintiff cannot meet his burden of proof at trial and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this issue.
iii. Personal Hygiene
Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff's allegation that there was no hot water in his cell for a period of approximately seven days. However, Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot show that his health or safety were jeopardized as a result. According to the prison out-of-cell logs, Plaintiff was allowed out of his cell to take a shower three times during the week in question, on August 19th, 21st, and 24th. Based on this evidence it appears that the longest period of time that Plaintiff was deprived of hot water for bathing was less than three days.
Other courts have found that failure to provide an inmate with hot water in his cell, even for extended periods of time, does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment, so long as the inmate is not denied adequate means of keeping himself clean. See Starks v. Roth, No. 91 C 6222, 1991 WL 222174, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 21, 1991) (rejecting claim by inmate who did not have hot water in his cell, because he had "averred nothing that would lead this Court to believe that he has been denied adequate means of keeping himself clean"); see also Mann v. Smith, 796 F.2d 79, 85 (5th Cir. 1986) (stating that "there is no constitutional right to hot water").
Although it is undisputed that Plaintiff was without hot water in his cell for approximately one week there is no evidence that he was denied adequate personal hygiene during that time. Because Plaintiff cannot show that his health or safety were jeopardized by the lack of hot water in his cell he cannot satisfy the objective prong of the Farmer test. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this issue.
d. Plaintiff's Discovery Requests
Prior to the filing of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff served Defendants with several discovery requests to which Defendants refused to respond. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel on March 1, 2004, and the Court entered an Order to Show Cause against Defendants on April 9, 2004. In conjunction with their summary judgment motion Defendants have responded to the Court's show cause order by arguing that Plaintiff's discovery requests are improper and unnecessary. Defendants argue that there is no need for Plaintiff to conduct discovery at this point because Defendants have already produced all evidence in their possession that is relevant to the sole remaining issue in this case. Defendants have also made other specific objections to each of Defendants discovery requests which the Court declines to address at this time.
After reviewing Plaintiff's discovery requests the Court concludes that they were not likely to produce any additional evidence relevant to the determination of this summary judgment motion. Given the Court's ruling on Defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment Plaintiff's discovery requests are now moot.
e. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration
Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of Defendant Jacobson on July 10, 2003. Plaintiff's motion argues that the Court's decision was based on the mistaken conclusion that Plaintiff was housed in a strip cell without a blanket, toilet pater, etc., for only twenty-four hours, while, according to Plaintiff, these conditions persisted for almost six days.
The Court's determination that Plaintiff was denied a blanket, toilet paper and other essentials for only twenty-four hours was based on the "Strip Cell Status Chronological Log and Summary Sheet" attached to the Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. In response to Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the Court has again reviewed this evidence and confirmed that it fully supports the Court's earlier conclusions. The log clearly indicates that Plaintiff was initially placed in the strip cell at 2200 hours on July 5, 2000. The log entry from 2234 hours on July 6, 2000, states: "Reviewed by SGT Whitaker taken off modified strip and placed on full strip status with blanket, mattress, underwear and toilet paper." These log entries clearly refute Plaintiff's assertion that he was denied essential items for nearly six days.
Although Plaintiff's motion raises questions about the actual reason for his transfer to the strip cell, those questions are irrelevant to whether he was denied certain bare essentials for a significant time period. Plaintiff has not adduced any evidence which might call into question the Court's previous determination on that issue. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
CONCLUSION
Based on the record in this case it is clear that Plaintiff cannot meet his burden of proof at trial regarding any of his claims. Plaintiff's deposition clearly shows that he was not denied a working toilet for a significant period of time, and there is insufficient evidence that a lack of water to Plaintiff's sink jeopardized his health or safety in any way.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted; and,
(4) Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
The Clerk's Office is directed to close the case.