From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. McByrde

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
Jul 31, 2010
Case No. 2:10-cv-131 (W.D. Mich. Jul. 31, 2010)

Opinion

Case No. 2:10-cv-131.

July 31, 2010


OPINION


This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and Plaintiff has paid the initial partial filing fee. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, PUB. L. NO. 104-134, 110 STAT. 1321 (1996), the Court is required to dismiss any prisoner action brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court must read Plaintiff's pro se complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff's allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying these standards, Plaintiff's action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Discussion

I. Factual allegations

Plaintiff currently is incarcerated at Newberry Correctional Facility (NCF). In his pro se complaint, he sues NCF Resident Unit Officer (RUO) unknown McByrde. Plaintiff alleges that on September 16, 2009 he asked Defendant to use the bathroom at 4:40 p.m. during a formal count. Defendant refused stating that the count was not yet cleared. Plaintiff returned to his bunk. At 4:48 p.m. Plaintiff looked out the window and saw that the count had finished. Plaintiff alleges that the count cleared at 4:45 p.m. (Compl., PageID# 3, docket #1.) Plaintiff states that he asked Defendant again to use the bathroom but was denied. Plaintiff alleges that, as a result, he urinated on himself.

However, according to the grievance Plaintiff attached to his complaint, he was being taken to the toilet and urinated on himself while walking down the hall. (Docket #1-1, PageID # 5.)

Plaintiff was then allowed to go down the hall and to have his pants washed. He heard Defendant tell corrections officer (CO) Cook that he did not take Plaintiff to the bathroom because he believed Plaintiff could "hold it" and had given Plaintiff a ten and five minute warning before the count began.

Plaintiff alleges that he has a medical problem that causes a need for frequent urination and that health care does not issue an accommodation for it. He states that he was in physical pain and sweating because of his need to urinate and that he was humiliated because he urinated on himself. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys fees and costs.

II. Failure to state a claim

A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if "'it fails to give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's allegations must include more than labels and conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; 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."). The court must determine whether the complaint contains "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Although the plausibility standard is not equivalent to a "'probability requirement,' . . . it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Ashcroft, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged — but it has not 'show[n]' — that the pleader is entitled to relief." Ashcroft, 129 S. Ct. at 1950 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the federal Constitution or laws and must show that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Dominguez v. Corr. Med. Servs., 555 F.3d 543, 549 (6th Cir. 2009). Because § 1983 is a method for vindicating federal rights, not a source of substantive rights itself, the first step in an action under § 1983 is to identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994).

The Eighth Amendment imposes a constitutional limitation on the power of the states to punish those convicted of crimes. Punishment may not be "barbarous" nor may it contravene society's "evolving standards of decency." Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346 (1981). The Eighth Amendment, therefore, prohibits conduct by prison officials that involves the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950, 954 (6th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 346). The deprivation alleged "must result in the denial of 'the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.'" Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347; see also Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 600-01 (6th Cir. 1998). The Eighth Amendment is only concerned with "deprivations of essential food, medical care, or sanitation" or "other conditions intolerable for prison confinement." Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 348.

Moreover, "[n]ot every unpleasant experience a prisoner might endure while incarcerated constitutes cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment." Ivey, 832 F.2d at 954. Allegations about temporary inconveniences, e.g., being deprived of a lower bunk, subjected to a flooded cell, deprived of a working toilet, do not demonstrate that the conditions fell beneath the minimal civilize measure of life's necessities as measured by a contemporary standard of decency. Dellis v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 257 F.3d 508, 511 (6th Cir. 2001); see also J.P. v. Taft, 439 F.Supp.2d 793, 811 (S.D. Ohio 2006) ("[M]inor inconveniences resulting from the difficulties in administering a large detention facility do not give rise to a constitutional claim." (internal citation omitted)). Plaintiff was only delayed access to a toilet for eight minutes after his initial request. The fact that Defendant did not take Plaintiff to the toilet during the middle of a count at the moment Plaintiff decided that he needed to urinate is insufficient, by itself, to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Hartsfield v. Vidor, 199 F.3d 305, 310 (6th Cir. 1999) (stating that "deprivations of fresh water and access to the toilet for a 20-hour period, while harsh, were not cruel and unusual punishment" (citing Stephens v. Carter County Jail, 816 F.2d 682 (6th Cir. 1987)). Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for violations of his Eighth Amendment rights.

Conclusion

Having conducted the review now required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court determines that Plaintiff's action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).

The Court must next decide whether an appeal of this action would be in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997). For the same reasons that the Court dismisses the action, the Court discerns no good-faith basis for an appeal. Should Plaintiff appeal this decision, the Court will assess the $455.00 appellate filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b)(1), see McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11, unless Plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis, e.g., by the "three-strikes" rule of § 1915(g). If he is barred, he will be required to pay the $455.00 appellate filing fee in one lump sum.

This is a dismissal as described by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

A Judgment consistent with this Opinion will be entered.


Summaries of

Johnson v. McByrde

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
Jul 31, 2010
Case No. 2:10-cv-131 (W.D. Mich. Jul. 31, 2010)
Case details for

Johnson v. McByrde

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM RAY JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN McBYRDE, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division

Date published: Jul 31, 2010

Citations

Case No. 2:10-cv-131 (W.D. Mich. Jul. 31, 2010)

Citing Cases

Hunt v. Director

In Johnson v. McByrde, No. 2:10-CV-131, 2010 WL 3059248 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 4, 2010), the court rejected a…