Opinion
No. 16–P–168.
11-16-2016
Tony B. GASKINS & another v. Dale BISSONETTE& others.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The plaintiffs, Tony B. Gaskins and Antonio Jones, are inmates in the custody of the Department of Correction. They appeal from a Superior Court judge's decision to grant the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974). We affirm.
While incarcerated at MCI–Concord, the pro se plaintiffs filed an action alleging that the defendants violated their rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. 26 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights by (1) not allowing prisoners or their visitors to use the bathroom more than once during visiting hours; and (2) depriving the plaintiffs of access to ice, ice water, and additional showers during hot weather. They sought injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief.
"We review the allowance of a motion to dismiss de novo.... We accept as true the facts alleged in the plaintiffs' complaint as well as any favorable inferences that can reasonably be drawn from them." Galiastro v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Sys., 467 Mass. 160, 164 (2014). In order to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must include factual allegations sufficient "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008), quoting from Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
To prevail in their argument that prison officials at MCI–Concord violated their rights under the Eighth Amendment, the plaintiffs would need to prove two things: (1) "the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, ‘sufficiently serious,’ ... [it] must result in the denial of ‘the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities' "; and (2) "the prison official must have a sufficiently culpable state of mind, that is, the official must have ‘deliberate indifference’ to the inmate's health or safety." ‘ Abdullah v. Secretary of Pub. Safety, 42 Mass.App.Ct. 387, 394 (1997), quoting from Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 837 (1994).
The protections under art. 26 have been found "to be at least as broad as the Eighth Amendment," barring "punishments which are found to be cruel or unusual in light of contemporary standards of decency which mark the progress of society." Good v. Commissioner of Correction, 417 Mass. 329, 335 (1994). In order for an inmate to claim a violation of art. 26, he must show: "(1) a condition or situation which poses a substantial risk of serious harm; and (2) facts establishing that a prison official has knowledge of the situation and ignores it."Luckern v. Suffolk County Sheriff's Dept., U.S. Dist. Ct., No. 07–12158, slip op. at 10–11 (D.Mass. March 22, 2010) (quotation omitted). "Because Article 26 and the Eighth Amendment guarantee essentially the same scope of rights, there is no need for separate analyses." Carter v. Symmes, U.S. Dist. Ct., No. 06–10273, slip op. at 10 n. 3 (D.Mass. February 4, 2008). The plaintiffs' claims, therefore, will be solely reviewed under the standard followed in ‘Abdullah, supra .
To survive the defendants' motion to dismiss, therefore, the plaintiffs were required to have pleaded sufficient facts to make it plausible that the defendants denied them humane conditions while "know[ing] and disregard[ing] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety." Id. at 394. The plaintiffs' complaint did not rise to that threshold, and therefore each of the plaintiffs' claims—the use of bathrooms during visiting hours and access to ice water and additional showers during hot days—was properly dismissed. In adopting the Twombly pleading standard, the Supreme Judicial Court noted that complaints do "not need detailed factual allegations ... [but] a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions." Iannachino, 451 Mass. at 636, quoting from Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
In the plaintiffs' complaint, they simply state that the defendants allowed inmates and visitors access to the bathroom only once during visiting hours and that this "constitute[d] cruel and unusual punishment." Such conclusory statements are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under the standard adopted in Iannachino, supra at 636. The complaint does not establish a plausible cause of action under either the Eighth Amendment or art. 26, as there is nothing to suggest that the defendants were knowingly denying humane conditions and "disregard[ing] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety." ‘ Abdullah, 42 Mass.App.Ct. at 394. As it relates to the plaintiffs' visitors, at no point do they plead any facts that would plausibly raise a constitutional violation under the standard adopted in ‘Abdullah. 5 Instead, they rely solely on a conclusory statement that visitors and inmates are allowed only one bathroom trip during visiting hours and contend that this rises to the level of cruel and unusual punishment. Furthermore, the issue of temporarily limiting the inmates' access to a restroom has been discussed by several courts, and found not to offend "the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." Id. at 394. See, e.g ., Patin vs. LeBlanc, U.S. Dist. Ct., No. 11–3071, slip op. at 27–29 (E.D.La. May 18, 2012) (claim that inmates have only limited access to bathrooms while working outside is frivolous).
Similarly, the plaintiffs stated that the denial of ice, ice water, and additional shower periods on hot days constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and art. 26. The plaintiffs' complaint does not state how the deprivation of ice, ice water, and additional showers either denies them "the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities" or how the defendants were operating with " ‘deliberate indifference’ to the [plaintiffs'] health or safety." ‘ Abdullah, 42 Mass.App.Ct. at 394.
As such, since the plaintiffs' complaint did not provide a proper factual basis to make a violation of the Eighth Amendment or art. 26 plausible, it was properly dismissed.
Judgment affirmed.
Antonio Jones.