Garcia v. LeBlanc

1

JOSE GARCIA #633342 v. JAMES M. LeBLANC, ET AL.

Civil Action No. 20-785-JWD-EWD

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

January 18, 2022

OPINION

JOHN W. DEGRAVELLES, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

This matter comes before the Court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, recommended Plaintiff's claims against James LeBlanc, as well as all claims arising from alleged violations of equal protection due process related to the original disciplinary proceedings claims for injunctive relief against Darryl Vannoy, Michael Jack, and Tammy Hendrickson in their individual capacities and state law claims arising under the Louisiana Constitution Article I, §§ 1, 3, and 20 be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and that Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims regarding the conditions of his confinement be dismissed without prejudice subject to his right to file an amended complaint that cures, if and where possible, the deficiencies of Plaintiff's conditions of confinement claims.^[1] The Report and Recommendation recognized that, if Plaintiff was given an opportunity to amend, he may be able to state a claim regarding the conditions to which he is subjected in “Control Cell Restriction, ” (“CCR”) where he is housed.^[2] After the issuance of the Report and Recommendation, in addition to filing an objection, ^[3]Plaintiff filed Motions to Supplement and Amend, ^[4] which attempt to cure the deficiencies of the conditions of confinement claims, as noted in the Report and Recommendation.^[5] The Motions to Amend will be granted in part. To the extent amendment is not allowed for conditions claims, those claims will be dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation will be adopted in part and rejected to the extent it recommended dismissal without prejudice of the conditions claims, as, due to the amendments, a determination regarding the viability of those claims for screening purposes is now possible.

I. Standard of Review for Amendment

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides the standard by which the Court must evaluate a motion to amend pleadings. In determining whether to grant leave, a court may consider several factors, including, “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of the amendment….”^[6] As discussed below, amendment of the majority of Plaintiff's claims would be futile, so Plaintiff will not be permitted to amend the suit to add those futile claims.^[7]

II. Original Claims

With respect to the conditions of confinement claims, Plaintiff previously provided relatively conclusory statements of sleep deprivation, living in fear, being deprived in general, and regarding the existence of the COVID-19 pandemic.^[8] Plaintiff has expounded on the conditions to which he is subject in his proposed amended complaints; each condition will be discussed in turn.

III. Proposed Amended Claims

Plaintiff complains regarding the following conditions in his proposed amended complaints: 23 hour per day cell confinement, limited outdoor recreation, lack of direct library and law library access, limited contact visits, denial of religious services and gatherings, denial of educational and therapy programs, inability to work to earn incentive wages, forced to have meals alone, denial of normal contact with other inmates, Plaintiff is forced to share a cell block with mentally ill prisoners who sometimes scream at night preventing Plaintiff from sleeping, he also has occasional trouble sleeping due to a fear that he will have hot water or human waste thrown on him, and the cell block is “extremely hot.”

Although some of these claims are true conditions of confinement claims, others invoke other provisions of the Constitution and federal law., and others do not rise to the level of a colorable federal claim at all Relative to the true conditions claims, the conditions under which a prisoner is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.^[9] An inmate must establish two elements-one objective, one subjective-to prevail on a conditions of confinement claim.^[10] First, he must show that the relevant official denied him “the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities” and exposed him “to a substantial risk of serious harm.”^[11] The “alleged deprivation” must be “objectively serious.”^[12] Second, the prisoner must show “that the official possessed a subjectively culpable state of mind in that he exhibited deliberate indifference” to the risk of harm.^[13] “Deliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to meet.”^[14] “A prison official displays deliberate indifference only if he (1) knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious bodily harm and (2) disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.”^[15] This inquiry is “subject to demonstration in the usual ways, including inference from circumstantial evidence.”^[16] A “factfinder may conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious.”^[17]

The Eighth Amendment “does not mandate comfortable prisons, but neither does it permit inhumane ones.”^[18] At a minimum, prison officials “must provide humane conditions of confinement” and “ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care.”^[19] They cannot deprive prisoners of the “basic elements of hygiene” or the “minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.”^[20] Prison conditions cannot inflict “wanton and unnecessary” pain.^[21]

To be clear, with respect to the below conditions, the only question before the Court now is whether these conditions violate the Eighth Amendment, as the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the Eighth Amendment claims without prejudice subject to the Plaintiff's right to amend.^[22] The undersigned agrees with the Magistrate Judge's assessment that the conditions in CCR coupled with the length of time Plaintiff has been in CCR have given rise to a liberty interest so as to invoke the protections of the due process clause, ^[23] but the existence or absence of a liberty interest for purposes of a due process analysis is not synonymous with finding allegations sufficient to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment.^[24]

a. 23 Hours Per Day Cell Confinement and Restricted Outdoor Recreation

Plaintiff complains that he is confined to a cell 23 hours per day and only allowed three hours of outdoor recreation per week.^[25] Confinement to a cell for 23 hours per day does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.^[26] Thus, because allowing Plaintiff amend his complaint to bring this claim would be futile, Plaintiff will not be permitted to amend his complaint in this regard.

Further, Plaintiff has not stated a claim regarding the amount of outdoor recreation he receives. The Fifth Circuit has evaluated claims regrading deprivation of exercise on a case-by-case basis using the following criteria: (1) the size of the inmate's cell; (2) the amount of time the inmate spends locked in his cell each day; and (3) the overall duration of the inmate's confinement.^[27] “[P]risoners have no absolute constitutional right to outdoor recreation, so long as some form of exercise is permitted, or, the conditions of confinement, when viewed as a whole, are not violative of the Eighth Amendment…. Even severe restrictions on or complete denials of outdoor recreation are not prohibited by the Constitution.”^[28] Plaintiff is provided with outdoor exercise three days per week and has failed to provide any facts indicating that the limit on the amount of outdoor exercise he receives has had any detrimental effects to his health.^[29] Moreover, the Fifth Circuit has found that one hour of outdoor exercise three days per week is constitutionally sufficient.^[30] Because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim of constitutional dimension with respect to his complaints of being in a cell 23 hours per day and enjoying three days of outdoor recreation per week for one hour per day, he will not be permitted to amend to add these claims.

b. Isolated Nature of Confinement

Plaintiff alleges that he is forced to eat alone and is denied all “normal” human contact with other prisoners.^[31] Though in some instances, the harm caused by lack of human contact may violate the Eighth Amendment, ^[32] the “isolation” described in this case does not rise to the level of isolation sufficient for an Eighth Amendment violation. Plaintiff is housed in a cell with “open bars” surrounded by other inmates in close enough proximity to throw objects and communicate, ^[33]and Plaintiff is allowed some contact visits with visitors outside of the prison.^[34] Further, Plaintiff does not indicate he has suffered any harm from the “isolation.” The “isolation” described by Plaintiff coupled with the fact that he has not suffered any articulable harm resulting from the “isolation” leads the Court to conclude that Plaintiff cannot state a claim in this regard.^[35] Thus, he will not be permitted to add this claim.

c. Sleep Deprivation

Plaintiff avers that he occasionally cannot sleep due to noise caused by other inmates and out of fear that something will be thrown on him while he sleeps.^[36] Though sleep is a necessity Plaintiff's sleep deprivation, as he describes it, stems from the inconvenience of prison life.^[37]Further, Plaintiff has failed to point to any injury stemming from the noises or from any sleep...