Opinion
4:24-cv-00182-LPR-ERE
11-03-2024
TYRONE ELLIS ADC #149250 PLAINTIFF v. KENYON RANDLE and DOES DEFENDANTS
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
I. Procedure for Filing Objections:
This Recommendation has been sent to United States District Judge Lee P. Rudofsky. You may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. Any objections filed must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for the 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 object, you risk waiving the right to appeal questions of fact and Judge Rudofsky can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record.
II. Background:
On February 28, 2024, pro se plaintiff Tyrone Ellis filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. Because Mr. Ellis is considered a three striker for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he was not allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 3. Mr. Ellis has now paid the statutory filing fee. Doc. 5.
Mr. Ellis' original complaint alleged that while he was assigned to restrictive housing in the East Arkansas Regional Unit of the ADC from March 31, 2022, until April 11, 2022: (1) he did not have a concrete slab table on which to put his meal tray and cup; (2) ADC officials denied him a suicide blanket while he was on behavior control; (3) ADC officials only provided him a suicide gown to wear while he was on behavior control; and (4) he was forced to sleep on the concrete floor while he was on behavior control. Because Mr. Ellis' original complaint was deficient, the Court provided Mr. Ellis an opportunity to file an amended complaint to clarify his constitutional claims. Doc. 6. Mr. Ellis has now filed an amended complaint. Doc. 10.
For the following reasons, Mr. Ellis' claims should be dismissed for failure to state a plausible constitutional claim for relief.
III. Discussion:
A. Standard
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints and to dismiss any 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) & (b). When making this determination, a court must accept the truth of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, and it may consider 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).
In deciding whether Mr. Ellis has stated a plausible claim for relief under § 1983, the Court must determine whether the allegations in the complaint, which are presumed true, “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint cannot simply “[leave] open the possibility that a plaintiff might later establish some ‘set of undisclosed facts' to support recovery.” Id. at 561 (citation omitted). Rather, the facts set forth in the complaint must “nudge [the] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Id. at 570.
B. Conditions of Confinement Claim
In his amended complaint, Mr. Ellis alleges that during the twelve days that he was assigned to restrictive housing: (1) he did not have a concrete slab table on which to put his meal and cup; (2) he was not provided “sanitary items” to clean his cell; (3) he was not provided a suicide blanket, smock, or mattress; and (4) he was forced to sleep on the floor without bedding. He sues building manager Kenyon Kandle, an unidentified lieutenant, and an unidentified mental health doctor in both their official and individual capacities seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief.
To move forward on an inhumane conditions of confinement claim, Mr. Ellis must allege facts which, taken as true, support a reasonable inference that he suffered a serious deprivation of “the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities” and the “offending conduct [was] wanton.” Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991). “The defendant's conduct must objectively rise to the level of a constitutional violation by depriving the plaintiff of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities. The defendant's conduct must also reflect a subjective state of mind evincing deliberate indifference to the health or safety of the prisoner.” Revels v. Vincenz, 382, F.3d 870, 875 (8th Cir. 2004) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Mr. Ellis' amended complaint fails to allege facts suggesting that Defendants either: (1) denied him any of life's necessities; or (2) disregarded an excessive risk to his health or safety. Mr. Ellis' allegations fall short of alleging that he suffered an extreme deprivation violating his constitutional rights. See Owens v. Scott County Jail, 328 F.3d 1026 (8th Cir. 2003) (reversing summary judgment where inmate slept on the floor next to a toilet for five weeks); Goldman v. Forbus, 17 Fed.Appx. 487, 488 (8th Cir. 2001) (unpublished opinion) (six nights sleeping on the floor and being sprinkled with urine was not a constitutional violation); White v. Nix, 7 F.3d 120, 121 (8th Cir. 1993) (no constitutional violation where pretrial detainee was confined in unsanitary cell for eleven days); Williams v. Delo, 49 F.3d 442, 444 (8th Cir. 1995) (four days without clothes, mattress, running water, bedding, mail, hot food, and hygienic supplies was not a constitutional violation); Seltzer-Bey v. Delo, 66 F.3d 961, 963-64 (8th Cir. 1995) (no constitutional violation where inmate was in strip cell for two days without clothing, bedding, or running water, with a concrete slab for a bed, and cold air blowing on him); Davis v. Clark, 2022 WL 4935392 (E.D. Ark. Sept. 15, 2022) (seven nights sleeping on the floor without a mattress not a constitutional violation); Gilliam v. Gebhardt, 2021 WL 3183739 (E. D. Ark. June 10, 2021) (no constitutional violation where pretrial detainee was forced to defecate then sleep on the floor for 36 hours); and Story v. Murry, 2020 WL 5649751 (E.D. Ark. Sept. 4, 2020) (sleeping without a mattress for 20 days not a constitutional violation).
IV. Conclusion:
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. Mr. Ellis' claims be DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on his failure to state a plausible constitutional claim for relief.
2. The Court recommend that, in the future, this dismissal be considered a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and certify that an in forma pauperis appeal of this dismissal would be frivolous and not taken in good faith.
3. The Clerk be instructed to close this case.