Summary
dismissing deliberate indifference claim where inmate “slipped and fell on a wet, poorly drained tile floor,” and noting that “courts have consistently found that slip and fall cases such as this do not give rise to a substantial risk of serious harm challenge the common standards of decency, [or] demonstrate deliberate indifference for purposes of asserting an Eighth Amendment violation”
Summary of this case from Goncalves v. Well Path Med. Dep'tOpinion
1:22-cv-212 Erie
08-05-2022
LARRY HADLEY, Plaintiff v. MR. OBERLANDER, et al., Defendants
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER
RICHARD A. LANZILLO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Recommendation
It is hereby recommended that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 3] be granted.
It is further recommended that Plaintiff s complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
II. Report
A. Plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
Plaintiff Larry Hadley (“Plaintiff') initiated this pro se civil rights action by filing a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 3. In his motion, Plaintiff states that he is unable to pay the filing fee associated with this case. Based upon this averment and a review of Plaintiff s institutional account statement, it appears that Plaintiff is without funds to pay the costs and fees of the proceedings. Accordingly, his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis should be granted.
B. Assessment of Plaintiff s Complaint
1. Standard of review
Having been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff is subject to the screening provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Among other things, that statute requires the Court to dismiss any action in which the Court determines that the action is “frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Muchler v. Greenwald, 624 Fed.Appx. 794, 796-97 (3d Cir. 2015). A frivolous complaint is one which is either based upon an indisputably meritless legal theory (such as when a defendant enjoys immunity from suit) or based upon factual contentions which are clearly baseless (such as when the factual scenario described is fanciful or delusional). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). The determination as to whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. D'Agostino v. CECOM RDEC, 436 Fed.Appx. 70, 72 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999)).
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his allegations, “however inartfully pleaded,” must be held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521 (1972). Moreover, under the liberal pleading rules, during the initial stages of litigation, a district court should construe all allegations in a complaint in favor of the complainant. Gibbs v. Roman, 116 F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 1997).
2. Factual background
In his complaint, Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Forest (SCI-Forest), claims that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution while working in the prison's kitchen. According to Plaintiff, while performing his duties as an employee in the prison's food service department, he slipped and fell on a wet, poorly drained tile floor. ECF No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff had previously requested a pair of rubber boots because of the slippery floor but was told that none were available. Id. He sustained an injury from the fall that ultimately required two surgeries. Id. Invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for his injuries. Id.
3. Analysis
Based on the factual allegations outlined above, Plaintiff appears to be primarily asserting a deliberate indifference claim based on prison officials' failure to maintain a safe working environment in the food service department. Plaintiff specifically cites the risk of harm presented by the wet tile floor in the prison kitchen. To establish a violation based on this incident, Plaintiff must allege that Defendants had actual knowledge of “an excessive risk to inmate health or safety” and were deliberately indifferent to the risk. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120, 125 (3d Cir. 2001). Deliberate indifference is a subjective inquiry, while risk of harm is evaluated objectively. Atkinson v. Taylor, 316 F.3d 257, 262 (3d Cir. 2003). In determining whether a prisoner has alleged a risk that is objectively serious, a court must consider not only the seriousness of the potential harm and the likelihood that the harm will occur, but evidence that unwilling exposure to that risk violates contemporary standards of decency. “In other words, the prisoner must show that the risk of which he complains is not one that today's society chooses to tolerate.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993).
Applying this standard, courts have consistently found that slip and fall cases such as this “do not give rise to a substantial risk of serious harm[,] challenge the common standards of decency, [or] demonstrate deliberate indifference for purposes of asserting an Eighth Amendment violation.” Ashford v. Hawkinberry, 2016 WL 3156483, at *4 (W.D. Pa. June 2, 2016). In Ashford, for example, the district court rejected an inmate-plaintiff s Eighth Amendment claim that he was “forced ... out on yard on a cold winter day and ... fell on a patch of ice and injured his knee and back.” Id. at *5. Relying on precedent from the Court of Appeals, the court held that such allegations “sound in negligence, which is not actionable under section 1983.” Id. at *5 (dismissing claim that defendants were deliberately indifferent to inmate's safety by subjecting him to an icy yard where he slipped and fell). See also Clayton v. Morgan, 501 Fed.Appx. 174,175-76 (3d Cir. 2012) (“Although black ice in the prison yard is less than desirable, [defendant's] decision to permit inmates to use the yard in spite of the presence of black ice falls short of the type of conduct that would constitute an Eighth Amendment violation.”); Brinkley v. Smeal, 2010 WL 5391276, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2010) (dismissing plaintiff-inmate's Eighth Amendment claim with prejudice because “slipping and falling on ice fails to state an Eighth Amendment claim.”).
The same reasoning applies here. While Plaintiff s injury is certainly unfortunate, this type of incident simply does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Plaintiff s complaint should be dismissed without leave to amend. Said dismissal, however, should be without prejudice to Plaintiffs right to file a negligence or other action in state court based on the same allegations.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 3] be granted and that Plaintiff s complaint [ECF No. 1] be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Said dismissal should be without prejudice to Plaintiffs right to assert a claim in state court based on the same incident.
IV. Notice
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, the parties must seek review by the district court by filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the Objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the Objections to respond thereto. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of appellate rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011); Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007).