Opinion
4:24-CV-00064-LPR-BBM
07-19-2024
DESHON AUSTIN ADC #184157 PLAINTIFF v. RODNEY WRIGHT, Sheriff, Saline County Sheriff's Office; GILLIAM, Captain, Saline County Detention Center; and SCHAFER, Sergeant, Saline County Detention Center DEFENDANTS
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
BENECIA MOORE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to United States District Judge Lee P. Rudofsky. You may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Recommendation. If you do not file objections, Judge Rudofsky may adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing all of the evidence in the record. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of fact.
I. BACKGROUND
On January 25, 2024, Plaintiff Deshon Austin (“Austin”), then an inmate at the Saline County Detention Center (“SCDC”), filed a pro se Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with three of his fellow inmates. (Doc. 1). The Complaint alleges that Defendants-Sheriff Rodney Wright (“Sheriff Wright”), Captain Gilliam, and Sergeant Schafer-violated the inmates' constitutional rights because the SCDC showers contained “black mold.” Id. at 4-5.
Pursuant to the Court's usual procedure, the Complaint was severed into four separate cases. Inmates Austin and William T. Mayfield (“Mayfield”) were the only inmates to file in forma pauperis motions or otherwise indicate their willingness to prosecute their case. Thus, Austin's and Mayfield's cases are the only two left pending.
Mayfield v. Wright, No. 4:24-CV-00063-LPR-BBM (E.D. Ark. Jan. 25, 2024); Austin v. Wright, No. 4:24-CV-00064-LPR-BBM (E.D. Ark. Jan. 25, 2024); Burton v. Wright, No. 4:24-CV-00065-LPR-BBM (E.D. Ark. Jan. 25, 2024); Curry v. Wright, No. 4:24-CV-00066-LPR-BBM (E.D. Ark. Jan. 25, 2024).
See Order of Dismissal, Burton v. Wright, No. 4:24-CV-00065-LPR-BBM (E.D. Ark. Mar. 25, 2024); Order of Dismissal, Curry v. Wright, No. 4:24-CV-00066-LPR-BBM (E.D. Ark. Mar. 25, 2024).
After Austin demonstrated his eligibility to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court conducted an initial screening of the Complaint pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and noted some deficiencies. (Doc. 10). Austin was given leave to file an Amended Complaint, but he has failed to do so. Id. Accordingly, the Court will proceed with screening.
The PLRA requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or a portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b). When making this determination, the Court must accept the truth of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, and it may consider the documents attached to the complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Reynolds v. Dormire, 636 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2011).
II. ALLEGATIONS
Austin's Complaint alleges that, “for 2 months now,” Defendants have ignored the black mold growing in the SCDC showers. (Doc. 1 at 4). He and the other inmates are “constantly getting sicker” by being “forced to take showers in black mold.” Id. One inmate spoke directly with Defendant Sergeant Schafer about the conditions and asked her for chemicals to clean the mold. Id. Defendant Sergeant Schafer allegedly stated that, “she don't care,” and the inmates “deserved to take showers in mold.” Id. Mayfield sent letters and a “Citizen Complaint Form,” that listed Austin as a witness, to Defendants Sheriff Wright and Captain Gilliam, but they “ignored” the situation. Id. at 4, 6-10. Austin sues Defendants in their individual and official capacities. Id. at 2. He seeks compensatory damages and injunctive relief. Id. at 5.
Because the multi-plaintiff Complaint is written in first person, it is unclear if it was Austin or another inmate that spoke directly with Defendant Sergeant Schafer.
III. DISCUSSION
To survive pre-service screening under the PLRA, a “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “[L]abels and conclusions,” a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action,” and “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” are insufficient to plead a plausible claim. Id. Further, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citation omitted). However, “[a] pro se complaint must be liberally construed,” and courts “should construe the complaint in a way that permits the layperson's claim to be considered within the proper legal framework.” Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 849 (8th Cir. 2014) (cleaned up; citations omitted); Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).
Liberally construing Austin's Complaint, the Court finds that he raises a plausible conditions-of-confinement claim against Defendants. The Complaint, however, is devoid of any specific factual allegations explaining how Austin was personally harmed by the conditions in the SCDC. Vague allegations that “inmates...are constantly getting sicker” do not suffice. (Doc. 1 at 4). Moreover, “[a] prisoner cannot bring claims on behalf of other prisoners” and, instead, may proceed only on the alleged constitutional violations that he personally experienced and the harm that he personally suffered. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, Austin fails to state a claim for relief against Defendants Sheriff Wright, Captain Gilliam, or Sergeant Schafer.
Additionally, Austin's claims against Defendants in their official capacities are equivalent to a claim against their employer, Saline County. Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 2010). In order to state an official-capacity claim, Austin must allege facts showing that the underlying constitutional violations resulted from: (1) an official Saline County policy; (2) an unofficial Saline County custom; or (3) a deliberately indifferent failure to train or supervise. Atkinson v. City of Mountain View, Mo., 709 F.3d 1201, 1214 (8th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). Austin fails to allege any such facts and, therefore, fails to state a viable official-capacity claim against any Defendant.
IV. CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. Austin's Complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
2. The Court RECOMMEND that the dismissal count as a “strike” for the purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
3. The Court CERTIFY, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from any Order adopting this Recommendation would not be taken in good faith.