Opinion
C.A. No. 03-186 ML
October 20, 2003
Report and Recommendation
Plaintiff Bernardo Figueroa, pro se, a Rhode Island inmate confined in Virginia, filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming as defendants Joseph DiNitto, A.T. Wall and P. Jenson, Rhode Island Department of Corrections employees. Currently before the Court is the motion of the plaintiff for a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction, directing the defendants to transfer the plaintiff to a confinement facility outside of Virginia. The defendants have objected. This matter has been referred to me for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). For the reasons that follow, I recommend that plaintiffs motion be denied. I have determined that a hearing is not necessary. Campbell Soup Co., v. Giles, 47 F.3d 467, 469 (1st Cir. 1995).
Background
Plaintiff Bernardo Figueroa is a Rhode Island inmate confined by the Rhode Island Department of Corrections in Virginia. In his Amended Complaint, plaintiff makes numerous allegations concerning the conditions of his confinement at the Virginia facilities. He alleges he has been: denied medical care; denied access to the courts; subjected to physical injury at the hands of prison guards; placed in an cell on death row, which was allegedly illuminated twenty four hours a day and had no running water; housed in a unit which contained mentally disturbed inmates; wrongfully accused of flooding his tier; disciplined for unintentionally damaging a sprinkler in his cell; and punished for various misdeeds by being placed in a five point restraint. Plaintiff also alleges that his mail has been tampered with, that he is handcuffed and shackled when he leaves his cell, and that his food portions are inadequate and nutritionally deficient.
Plaintiff alleges that he has written to the defendants concerning the conditions he allegedly faces in Virginia in an effort to be transferred elsewhere. The defendants have refused his transfer requests. Accordingly, plaintiff seeks to hold the Rhode Island Department of Corrections defendants responsible for the alleged conditions at the Virginia facilities since they refused to relocate him elsewhere.
Plaintiff has now filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. By way of the instant motion, plaintiff seeks an order directing the defendants to transfer him to a confinement facility outside of Virginia. Defendants have objected.
Discussion
In order to succeed on a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) the potential for immediate, irreparable injury; (2) the likelihood of success on the merits of the case; (3) the relevant balance of hardships if the injunction does not issue; and (4) the effect on the public interest of a grant or denial of the motion.See Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Guilbert 934 F.2d 4, 5 (1st Cir. 1991). A failure to demonstrate one of the requirements necessitates a denial of the motion. Here, plaintiff fails to demonstrate that he will likely be successful on the merits of his claims.
The Eighth Amendment provides that "[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." U.S. CONST, amend. VIII. The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause was designed to protect those convicted of crimes, and can limit the type of punishment that is imposed. Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 664 (1977). After an individual is incarcerated, only the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Whitely v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 318-319 (1986). "It is obduracy and wantonness, not inadvertence or error in good faith, that characterize the conduct prohibited by the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. . . ." Id. "The general requirement that an Eighth Amendment claimant allege and prove the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain should . . . be applied with due regard for the differences in the kind of conduct against which an Eighth Amendment objection is lodged." Id. at 320.
With respect to physical injuries inflicted, the use of excessive force can be an Eighth Amendment violation when there is an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and the force was "maliciously and sadistically [used] to cause harm." Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7. Excessive force claims require inquiry into the defendant's intent.Id. at 9. Inadequate medical treatment claims also require an inquiry into the defendant's intent. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976).
Thus, Courts considering a prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim must ask if the defendant acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind.See Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9; Wilson v. Seiten 501 U.S. 294, 298-303. An Eighth Amendment violation requires a state of mind akin to criminal recklessness; that the defendant knew of and consciously disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994);Mahan v. Plymouth County House of Corrections, 64 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 1995).
Here, plaintiff seeks to hold the defendants liable pursuant to the Eighth Amendment based upon their failure to remove him from alleged unconstitutional conditions at the Virginia prisons. Plaintiff must demonstrate, inter alia, that each named defendant is aware of the alleged unconstitutional conditions and nevertheless continues to permit the plaintiff to be exposed to these conditions, in a deliberate and indifferent manner. Plaintiff, however, has adduced no evidence that any of the named defendants acted in a deliberate indifferent manner.
Plaintiff avers that he has suffered physical injuries at the hands of correctional officers in Virginia and has been subjected to alleged unconstitutional conditions. He alleges that he sent letters to the Rhode Island department of Corrections defendants, reporting his problems in Virginia and seeking to be moved to a different locale. Plaintiff, however, has not demonstrated that these alleged constitutionally questionable conditions in fact exist, other than the plaintiffs own self serving declarations. More importantly, no evidence presented demonstrates that the defendants had actual knowledge of any unconstitutional condition at the Virginia facilities. No evidence has been presented, or showing made, that indicates that the defendants had a culpable state of mind, akin to criminal recklessness, and intended to harm the plaintiff
The Court draws the reader's attention to the documents submitted by the plaintiff in support of this motion. While the prison condition in Virginia may be harsh, the documents submitted fail to demonstrate that any alleged unconstitutional condition exists.
For example, plaintiff alleges that he has been denied medical care, with three discernable medical care claims. Plaintiff asserts that (1) he requires eye surgery that has not been forth coming; (2) he has not had a timely teeth cleaning; and (3) he has been receiving generic vitamins instead of the brand name "Thereagram M." The documents submitted by the plaintiff, however, demonstrate that the plaintiff has been seen by numerous doctors and has received treatment.
The documents also indicate that the plaintiff has even refused treatment. The Court notes that the plaintiff is not entitled to the doctor or treatment of his choice, nor is he entitled to constitutionalize claims sounding in tort.
To the extent that plaintiff complains about a lack of a timely teeth cleaning and not receiving his "Theragram M" multi-vitamin, these claims are not objectively serious to come within the reach of the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976).
Plaintiff also complains of a denial of access to the courts. As a basis for this claim, plaintiff alleges that the law libraries in Virginia are inadequate. However, in response to the plaintiffs internal complaints, the Virginia prison officials sua sponte scheduled the plaintiff to meet with a local inmates' attorney.
Plaintiff also indicates that some of his mail was delivered to him after midnight, waking him from sleep. Plaintiff brought this issue to the attention of Virginia prison officials and the documents demonstrate that they have taken corrective action.
Without making a showing of a culpable state of mind on the part of these named defendants, plaintiff fails to demonstrate a likelihood of success of his claims. Accordingly, plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction should be denied. I so recommend.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I recommend that plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction be denied. Any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be specific and must be filed with the Clerk of Court within ten days of its receipt. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Local Rule 32. Failure to file timely, specific objections to this report constitutes waiver of both the right to review by the district court and the right to appeal the district court's decision. United States v. Valencia-Copete. 792 F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1986) (per curiam); Park Motor Mart. Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603 (1st Cir. 1980).