From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Santos v. Corrections Corporation of America

United States District Court, D. Arizona
Apr 12, 2011
No. CV 11-630-PHX-JAT (MEA) (D. Ariz. Apr. 12, 2011)

Opinion

No. CV 11-630-PHX-JAT (MEA).

April 12, 2011


ORDER


Plaintiff Jason K. Santos, who is confined in the Corrections Corporation of America-Saguaro Correctional Center, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and a Motion to Appoint Counsel. The Court will deny the Motion to Appoint Counsel and dismiss the action.

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

In Forma Pauperis28 U.S.C. § 191528 U.S.C. § 191528 U.S.C. § 1915 28 U.S.C. § 1915A28 U.S.C. § 1915A

A pleading must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does not demand detailed factual allegations, "it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id.

"[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. "Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 1950. Thus, although a plaintiff's specific factual allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there are other "more likely explanations" for a defendant's conduct. Id. at 1951.

But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts must "continue to construe pro se filings liberally." Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A "complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] 'must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)).

If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The Court should not, however, advise the litigant how to cure the defects. This type of advice "would undermine district judges' role as impartial decisionmakers." Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n. 13 (declining to decide whether the court was required to inform a litigant of deficiencies). Plaintiff's Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, without leave to amend because the defects cannot be corrected.

III. Complaint

Plaintiff names the following Defendants in the Complaint: Corrections Corporation of America, Warden Todd Thomson, Assistant Warden Ben Griego, Assistant Warden Jodi Bradley, Unit Manager M. T. Betrus, and Correctional Counselor Nadia Clark.

Plaintiff raises three grounds for relief in which he claims that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated. Plaintiff alleges that in May 2009, he and other inmates in his unit were let out of their cells for dayroom time. Inmates were instructed to bring cooking and showering supplies because their cell doors would be locked behind them. Plaintiff alleges that he began to feel ill and asked Defendant Clark to unlock his cell door so he could use the bathroom. Defendant Clark denied his request. Plaintiff made several more requests but was denied by Defendant Clark and other Correctional Officers. Plaintiff states that he eventually relieved himself using a bucket in the janitor's closet and was then later disciplined for "unsanitary." Plaintiff claims that he was denied use of a toilet for one hour and thirty-five minutes.

In Count II, Plaintiff repeats his claim and argues that he was denied a basic necessity for one hour and thirty-five minutes. In Count III, Plaintiff alleges the same facts and argues that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's need to use a toilet.

Plaintiff seeks money damages and injunctive relief.

IV. Failure to State a Claim

An Eighth Amendment claim requires a sufficiently culpable state of mind by the Defendants, known as "deliberate indifference." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Deliberate indifference is a higher standard than negligence or lack of ordinary due care for the prisoner's safety. Id. at 835. To state a claim of deliberate indifference, plaintiffs must meet a two-part test. First, the alleged constitutional deprivation must be, objectively, "sufficiently serious"; the official's act or omission must result in the denial of "the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities."Id. at 834. Second, the prison official must have a "sufficiently culpable state of mind," i.e., he must act with deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety. Id. In defining "deliberate indifference" in this context, the Supreme Court has imposed a subjective test: "the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference." Id. at 837 (emphasis added).

In this case, Plaintiff has not alleged a "sufficiently serious" deprivation to state a claim for a violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Hartsfield v. Vidor, 199 F.3d 305, 309-10 (6th Cir. 1999) (finding no constitutional violation where plaintiff was not allowed to use toilet, was allowed to sit in his own urine, and was not provided with fresh drinking water for two 8-hour periods; noting that the court had previously held that deprivations of fresh water and access to a toilet for 20 hours was harsh, but not cruel and unusual). Cf. Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 733 (9th Cir. 2000) ("[W]e have no doubt that toilets can be unavailable for some period time without violating the Eighth Amendment. . . .").

Although Plaintiff's situation was no doubt discomforting and undesirable, Plaintiff's allegation that, on a single occasion, he was denied access to a toilet for a brief period of time simply does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. The Court will therefore dismiss the Complaint and this action.

V. Dismissal without Leave to Amend

Where amendment would be futile, there is no reason to prolong litigation by allowing further amendments. Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002); Klamath-Lake Pharmaceutical Ass'n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (futile amendments should not be permitted). The Court finds that Plaintiff's claims cannot be cured by amendment and will therefore dismiss the Complaint without leave to amend.

VI. Motion to Appoint Counsel

Because the Court will dismiss the Complaint, the Court will deny as moot the Motion to Appoint Counsel.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3) is granted.

(2) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government agency, Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $22.00.

(3) Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 5) is denied.

(4) The Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

(5) The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket stating that the dismissal for failure to state a claim may count as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

(6) The docket shall reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), that any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith.

DATED this 11th day of April, 2011.


Summaries of

Santos v. Corrections Corporation of America

United States District Court, D. Arizona
Apr 12, 2011
No. CV 11-630-PHX-JAT (MEA) (D. Ariz. Apr. 12, 2011)
Case details for

Santos v. Corrections Corporation of America

Case Details

Full title:Jason K. Santos, Plaintiff, v. Corrections Corporation of America, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Apr 12, 2011

Citations

No. CV 11-630-PHX-JAT (MEA) (D. Ariz. Apr. 12, 2011)

Citing Cases

Freeman v. Ducey

A temporary delay in allowing a prisoner to use a restroom falls short of a constitutional deprivation, but…