Opinion
Case No, CV04-106-N-EJL
April 12, 2004
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
Plaintiffs Complaint was conditionally filed on March 2, 2004. The Court now reviews the Complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 1915A. The Court also reviews Plaintiffs other pending motions. Having reviewed the record, and otherwise being fully informed, the Court enters the following Order.
I. REVIEW OF COMPLAINT
A. Standard of Law and Facts AllegedThe Court is required to review prisoner and in forma pauperis complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 1915A. The Court must dismiss a complaint or any portion thereof which states a frivolous or malicious claim, which fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or which seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Plaintiff complains that, while he was incarcerated at the Benewah County Jail, he was denied access to legal materials, a recreational facility, and a vegetarian diet. After a review of the record, the Court has determined that Plaintiff cannot proceed on his Complaint. The Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended complaint, following the guidelines set forth below.
1. Failure to Provide Legal Materials
In Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977), the Supreme Court held that "the fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to 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." In Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996), the Court explained the limitations of the Bounds holding. There, the Court emphasized that "Bounds did not create an abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance." Id. at 351, The Supreme Court also opined in Casey that "the Constitution does not require that prisoners (literate or illiterate) be able to conduct generalized research, but only that they be able to present their grievances to the courts-a more limited capability that can be produced by a much more limited degree of legal assistance" Id, at 360.
In order to demonstrate that he has a viable access to courts claim, Plaintiff must show that he suffered an actual injury as a result of the alleged denial to access. Id. at 351. Actual injury may be manifest if the denial "hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim," such as having his complaint dismissed for "for failure to satisfy some technical requirements" caused by the denial, or if he "suffered arguably actionable harm that he wished to bring before the courts, but was so stymied [by the denial] that he was unable even to file a complaint. Id, The Casey Court noted that the right to access courts claims covered by the Bounds line of cases covers only a limited type of cases; direct appeals from convictions for which the inmates are incarcerated, habeas petitions, and civil rights actions regarding prison conditions. Id. at 354. "Impairment of any other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and perfectly constitutional) consequences of conviction and incarceration." Id, at 355.
If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must include specific facts detailing the type of legal case that was impaired, Defendants' specific actions or omissions, and the injury or damage he suffered as a result of Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiff with access to the courts.
2. Failure to Provide Opportunity for Exercise
To state a claim under the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must show that he is incarcerated "under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm," or that he has been deprived of "the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (internal citation omitted). A plaintiff must also show that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his needs. Deliberate indifference exists when an official knows of and disregards an unconstitutional condition or when the official is aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a risk of harm or violation exists, and actually draws the inference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 837.
A lack of opportunity for outdoor exercise in prison may state an Eighth Amendment claim for denial of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities, depending upon whether a plaintiff suffered medical effects as a result of the denial and/or how long the denial lasted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000); Alien v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 1994),
Plaintiff should provide facts stating whether the jail provided regular opportunities for outdoor exercise and a place for inmates to exercise. There is no requirement that incarceration facilities provide specific types of recreational facilities or activities for inmates.
3. Failure to Provide a Vegetarian Dict
Plaintiff has not alleged that he needed a vegetarian diet pursuant to a doctor's orders. Without a showing that Plaintiffs health was endangered by a failure to provide a vegetarian diet, such a restriction is not enough to state a claim for cruel and unusual punishment. LaFevers v. Saffle, 936 F.2d 1117, 1120 (10th Cir. 1991). An alternative manner in which to state a constitutional claim regarding diet is to allege that such a diet was required and requested as a result of the inmate's religious beliefs. Id, Plaintiff does not allege any religious factors regarding his request for a vegetarian diet. Accordingly, this claim is subject to dismissal unless Plaintiff has additional facts to provide in his amended complaint.
See also Word v, Croce, 169 F. Supp.2d 219 (D.N.Y. 2001). INITIAL REVIEW ORDER 5
4. Statute of Limitations
The statute of limitations is a proper basis for sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(d). See Pino v. Ryan, 49 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 1995); Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Gartrell v. Gaylor, 981 F.2d 254, 256 (5th Cir. 1993)). The length of the statute of limitations for a civil rights action is governed by state law. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985), Idaho Code § 5-219 provides for a two-year statute of limitations for professional malpractice, personal injury, and wrongful death actions. Federal civil rights actions arising in Idaho are governed by this two-year statute of limitations.
Plaintiff alleges that he was last incarcerated the Benewah County Jail on February 16, 2002, His Complaint was filed on March 2, 2004. It appears that the Complaint may be untimely unless the mailbox rule applies, or equitable tolling applies during exhaustion of administrative remedies, see Brown v. Morgan, 209 F.3d 595 (6th Cir. 2000), or for other good cause. Plaintiffs amended complaint should contain facts addressing the statute of limitations and equitable tolling.
Prisoners are usually entitled to the benefit of the "mailbox rule," which provides that a legal document is deemed filed on the date a petitioner delivers it to the prison authorities for filing by mail, rather than the date it is actually filed with the clerk of court. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (19S8).
B. Instructions for Amendment
If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, it must contain all of his allegations in a single pleading, and cannot rely upon or incorporate by reference prior pleadings. D. Id. L. Civ, R. 15.1 ("Any amendment to a pleading, whether filed as a matter of course or upon a motion to amend, shall reproduce the entire pleading as amended"). Bach different factual allegation should be presented in a separate numbered paragraph. The amended complaint must he legibly written or typed in its entirety, and it should be clearly designated as the "First Amended Complaint."
If Plaintiff chooses to go forward, the Court will grant his Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, and the sum of $150.00 for the filing fee will be deducted in increments from his prison trust account. If Plaintiff does not wish to proceed with this case, he can file a "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal" and avoid paying the $150.00 tiling fee.
II. ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
A.Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 1) is MOOT.
B.Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel (contained in the Complaint) is MOOT.
C.Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days in which to file an amended complaint or a notice of intent to voluntarily dismiss his case. If neither is filed, the Court will dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.