Opinion
Civil Action No. 95-CV-3740
August 26, 2002
STEVEN A. BLACKISTON, WAYNESBURG, PA, for Plaintiff.
KRISTEN KIRK MAYOCK, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, KATHERINE H. REBILLARD, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, PATRICK J. M.C. MONAGLE, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, PHILADELPHIA, PA, DAVID G. C. ARNOLD, CONSHOHOCKEN, PA, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Steven A. Blackiston brings this action alleging that certain prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Defendants Donald T. Vaughn and Ronald J. Zahn have moved for summary judgment, and for the reasons set forth below, I grant their motion.
BACKGROUND Procedural History
This matter has a lengthy procedural history. In June 1995, Plaintiff commenced this action which was subsequently dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff appealed, and the Third Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. In an order issued on October 21, 1997, the Court limited the scope of this action to Plaintiff's individual claims related to his incarceration at the State Correctional Institute at Graterford ("Graterford") because another matter was pending in the Middle District concerning Mr. Blackiston's incarceration at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill. By Order dated September 24, 1998, Judge Broderick granted Plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss Winifred Young from the action and granted Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims regarding environmental tobacco smoke and uncivilized behavior on the part of Plaintiff's fellow inmates. In the same Order, Judge Broderick denied the motion by Defendants Donald T. Vaughn and Robert J. Zahn to dismiss insofar as Plaintiff's complaint alleges a claim regarding the lack of heat and hot water. See Blackiston v. Vaughn, Civ. A. No. 95-3740, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15008 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 24, 1998). After conducting discovery on this issue, Defendants moved for summary judgment. My attempts to secure Plaintiff appointed counsel were unsuccessful.
Factual Background
It is undisputed that Plaintiff Steven A. Blackiston was housed on J-block of the C-wing of Graterford's Restricted Housing Unit ("J-block") from December 2, 1994 to December 22, 1994. (Comp. ¶¶ 3-5.) Plaintiff alleges that during this twenty-day period the heating in and around his cell was inadequate and that he did not have access to hot water. (Compl. ¶ 5.) Defendants admit that there were intermittent problems with the heating and hot water systems in J-block in 1993 and 1994, and that such problems existed during the time Mr. Blackiston was housed on J-block. (Id. ¶ 5.) More specifically, on December 3, 1994, Graterford's maintenance department determined that there was a leak in the steam line in J-block. (Id. ¶ 7.) The maintenance department prepared a purchase request that indicated certain parts that were needed to repair the steam line in J-block; this purchase request was designated as a "rush" request. (Id., Ex. E.) According to undisputed evidence, the maintenance department received the requested parts and completed the repairs to the steam link on January 31, 1995, after Mr. Blackiston had been transferred out of J-block. (Id. ¶¶ 7-10.)
"[When] the plaintiff is a pro se litigant, [courts] have a special obligation to construe his complaint liberally." Zilich v. Lucht, 981 F.2d 694, 694 (3d Cir. 1992).
It appears that the delay in the repairs was due to difficulties in obtaining certain replacement parts. (Hiltner Decl. ¶¶ 7-9.)
Mr. Blackiston has described the conditions in his cell as ranging from "chilly" to "cold enough [that] when you talked you could see the heat coming out." (Blackiston Dep. at 27.) Plaintiff was able to keep warm, however, by burning toilet paper and by doing "some jogging in place, some jumping jacks, push-ups." (Id. at 20.) Plaintiff recalls exercising for five to ten minutes — "until [his] blood started warming up" — approximately seven times per day. (Id. at 21). Mr. Blackiston wore socks, shoes, boxer shorts, a t-shirt, and a jumpsuit. (Id. at 20-21.) He also had a sheet and a blanket and received three "lukewarm" meals per day. (Id. at 9, 21-22.) Medical care was available to Plaintiff, and he recalls that he requested "sick call" and was seen by a doctor. Mr. Blackiston admits that these requests to see a doctor were related to problems with secondhand smoke and not to the temperature of his cell. (Id. at 43.) During the period of time in question, running water, though cold, was available. (Id. at 27.) Although not required to do so, Mr. Blackiston took cold showers while on J-block. (Id. at 28-29.)
Defendant Donald T. Vaughn has served as Graterford's Superintendent since 1989. (Vaughn Decl. ¶ 1.) As Superintendent, Defendant Vaughn has "general overall responsibility for the operation of Graterford." (Id.) Plaintiff has stated that he submitted an inmate request slip to Defendant Vaughn complaining about the lack of heat and never received a response. (Blackiston Dep. at 32-33.) Defendant Vaughn "do[es] not recall seeing the request slip" that Plaintiff submitted. (Vaughn Decl. ¶ 5.) Moreover, Defendant Vaughn states that "since the request slip references ventilation, heat and hot water problems . . . [his] assistant would have forwarded it to the maintenance department" and that he "did not know that inmate Blackiston complained about a lack of heat or hot water in J-block in December 1994." (Id. ¶¶ 4-5.)
Plaintiff brings suit against Defendants in their individual capacities only. (Compl. ¶ 2.)
Plaintiff also filed a grievance regarding the lack of heat and hot water with Lieutenant Robert J. Zahn. (Pl.'s Resp. to Summ. J. Mot., Ex. D.) This grievance was received by Defendant Zahn (Id.), who supervised the operation of J-block during the dates at issue. In Fall 1994, Defendant Zahn took steps to have J-block's hot water problems fixed. (Hiltner Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.) Defendant Zahn also made requests for repairs to the heating and hot water system when it malfunctioned in December. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 10).
In his deposition, Plaintiff testified that he requested a second blanket or jumpsuit and that Lieutenant Zahn informed him that none were available. (Blackiston Dep. at 31-32.) There is no evidence that additional blankets or jumpsuits were available and withheld from Plaintiff. Moreover, in 1994, Graterford was experiencing severe overcrowding and blankets and jumpsuit were in short supply. (Knauer Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.) Based on undisputed evidence, when extra blankets and jumpsuits did become available, they were distributed to older inmates and inmates with documented medical conditions. (Knauer Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.)
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment must be granted if the record shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). When weighing the evidence offered by the parties on a motion for summary judgment, this Court must review the evidence and all inferences drawn from that evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
DISCUSSION Eighth Amendment Conditions-of-Confinement Claims
The Eighth Amendment, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the infliction of "cruel and unusual punishments." To succeed on his Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim, Plaintiff must show that prison conditions were dangerous, intolerable, or shockingly substandard. See Riley v. Jeffes, 777 F.2d 143, 147 (3d Cir. 1985); Inmates of Allegheny Co. Jail v. Pierce, 612 F.2d 754, 757 (3d Cir. 1979). Plaintiff seeks to enforce his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
To prevail on his cruel and unusual punishment claim, Mr. Blackiston must satisfy both parts of the two-prong test set forth in Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991). First, Plaintiff must establish that Defendants' conduct resulted in the denial of the "minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." Id. at 298. Additionally, to satisfy the subjective inquiry of the test's second prong, Plaintiff must demonstrate that the prison officials acted with deliberate indifference. Id. at 303. Mr. Blackiston cannot meet either prong of the Seiter test.
Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief is moot. See Weaver v. Wilcox, 650 F.2d 22, 27 (3d Cir. 1981) (prisoner lacks standing to seek injunctive relief when no longer subject to conditions prisoner challenges).
Objective Inquiry
The fact that Mr. Blackiston experienced cool or somewhat cold conditions in his cell over a twenty-day period, though regrettable, does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. "[T]he Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, and prisons . . . cannot be free of discomfort." Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981); see also Tinsley v. Vaughn, Civ. A. No. 90-113, 1991 WL 95323, at *4 (E.D.Pa. 1991) ("To the extent [a prisoner] merely alleges discomfort, he does not meet the requirements for a claim of cruel and unusual punishment.").In certain circumstances, the lack of heat may give rise to a constitutional violation. See Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 1997) (summary judgment improper when inmate alleged ice formed on cell walls during winter for several years as a result of inadequate heating); Chandler v. Baird, 926 F.2d 1057, 1064-1066 (11th Cir. 1991) (collecting cases). However, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Mr. Blackiston can only show that he has suffered discomfort. Likewise, Plaintiff cannot show that the conditions in his cell jeopardized, or potentially jeopardized, his health, or that his cell was unfit for habitation. See Tinsley, 1991 WL 95323 at *4. It is also significant that Mr. Blackiston attributes his seeking medical treatment while on J-block to reasons unrelated to the temperature of his cell. See Rambert v. Horn, Civ. A. No. 96-2875, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14968, at *10 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 11, 1996) (absence of any ailment other than colds or sore throats militates against characterizing cell conditions as objectively serious). For these reasons, Plaintiff cannot meet the objective prong of the Seiter test.
Subjective Inquiry
Supreme Court precedent also "mandate[s] inquiry into a prison official's state of mind when it is claimed that the official has inflicted cruel and unusual punishment." Seiter, 501 U.S. at 299. Specifically, a prisoner must show that a defendant's state of mind is one of "deliberate indifference" to inmate health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994). Because there is no respondeat superior liability in § 1983 cases, the mere fact that a defendant is in a supervisory position is insufficient to find that person liable. See Hampton v. Holmesburg Prison Officials, 546 F.2d 1077, 1082 (3d Cir. 1976). Furthermore, a prison official's failure to respond to a prisoner's grievance does not establish deliberate indifference. See Durmer v. O'Carroll, 991 F.2d 64, 69 (3d Cir. 1993). Thus, because Plaintiff's allegation against Defendant Vaughn is premised on his failure to respond to a request slip, Plaintiff cannot satisfy the second prong of the Seiter test with respect to Defendant Vaughn. Regarding Defendant Zahn, the undisputed evidence shows that he took appropriate steps to have the heating and hot water systems repaired. In addition, there is no support for an allegation that blankets and jumpsuits were available and denied to Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot establish that Defendant Zahn acted with deliberate indifference.
For the reasons stated above, I have concluded that even viewed in the light most favorable to Mr. Blackiston, the allegations do not show that Plaintiff's constitutional rights have been violated. Consequently, I need not reach Defendants' qualified immunity defense. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200 (2001); see also Curley v. Klem, ___ F.3d ___, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 15488, at *11 (3d Cir. 2002). Nonetheless, I note that even if Plaintiff's allegations did amount to a constitutional violation, he would be unable to overcome Defendants' qualified immunity defense. See Tinsley, 1991 WL 95323, at *5-6 (discussing prison officials entitlement to qualified immunity in absence of appreciable harm to plaintiff).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Vaughn and Zahn are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims.ORDER
AND NOW, this day of August, 2002, upon consideration of the Motion of Defendants Donald T. Vaughn and Robert J. Zahn for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's response thereto, and for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 38) is GRANTED.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case for statistical purposes.