Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-3839
08-27-2019
JERON EVANS, Plaintiff, v. GEORGE W. HILL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM KEARNEY, J.
Jeron Evans pro se sues the George W. Hill Correctional Facility ("Prison"), challenging conditions of his confinement during his recent incarceration. He moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We grant Mr. Evans leave to proceed in forma pauperis. But he cannot proceed as yet as he fails to plead a claim against the Prison for civil rights violations. We dismiss his Complaint against the Prison with leave to amend to possibly allege claims against state actors.
I. Plead facts.
Mr. Evans' Complaint is sparse. He alleges the events giving rise to his claims occurred at the Prison between August 26, 2018 and March 10, 2019. He alleges an "inhumane living situation." Mr. Evans does not allege more information. He claims back pain and seeks "compensation for pain + suffering." We understand Mr. Evans to be asserting constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the conditions of his confinement. We have no other alleged facts.
ECF Doc. No. 2 at 3.
Id. at 4.
II. Analysis.
We grant Mr. Evans leave to proceed in forma pauperis as he is incapable of paying the fees to commence this civil action. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), we must dismiss his Complaint if he fails to plead "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Conclusory allegations do not suffice. As Mr. Evans is proceeding pro se, we construe his allegations liberally.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted).
Id.
Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).
"To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." Mr. Evans named the Prison as the only Defendant. His claims against the Prison must be dismissed because the facility "is not a legal entity susceptible to suit." He must sue a person.
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
Cephas v. George W. Hill Corr. Facility, No. 09-6014, 2010 WL 2854149, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 20, 2010) (quoting Ignudo v. McPhearson, No. 03-5459, 2004 WL 1320896, at *2 (E.D. Pa. June 10, 2004)); see also Regan v. Upper Darby Twp., No. 06-1686, 2009 WL 650384, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 11, 2009) ("[A] prison or correctional facility is not a 'person' that is subject to suit under federal civil rights laws.").
Mr. Evans has also not alleged a constitutional claim. He makes one conclusory allegation, i.e., being subjected to what he describes as an inhumane living situation. Mr. Evans does not allege a fact about the conditions or explain why those conditions rise to the level of a constitutional violation. We dismiss his Complaint. But he may be able to plead a claim. We grant him leave to timely amend with facts against a state actor.
The Eighth Amendment governs claims brought by convicted inmates challenging their conditions of confinement, while the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment governs claims brought by pretrial detainees. Hubbard v. Taylor (Hubbard I), 399 F.3d 150, 166 (3d Cir. 2005). To establish an Eighth Amendment violation based on the conditions of confinement, a prisoner must establish prison officials' acts or omissions denied him "the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). He must also establish the defendants acted with deliberate indifference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994). To establish a basis for a Fourteenth Amendment violation, a prisoner must establish the conditions of confinement amount to punishment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 538 (1979). This inquiry generally turns on whether the conditions have a purpose other than punishment and whether the conditions are excessive in relation to that purpose. See id. at 538-39; Hubbard I, 399 F.3d at 158. In assessing whether a prisoner's conditions of confinement violate the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment, a court should consider the totality of the circumstances. See, e.g., Hubbard v. Taylor (Hubbard II), 538 F.3d 229, 235 (3d Cir. 2008); Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 67 (3d Cir. 1996); Union Cty. Jail Inmates v. DiBuono, 713 F.2d 984, 1000-01 (3d Cir. 1983).
III. Conclusion
We grant Mr. Evans leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his Complaint. We dismiss Mr. Evans' Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim without prejudice to timely filing an amended complaint if he can allege a plausible claim against an appropriate state actor, not the Prison.
See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002). --------