Gray v. Burt

• Decision Date: 11 March 2014
• Docket Number: No. C12-0070-LRR,C12-0070-LRR
• Parties: ANTONIO VINCENT GRAY, Plaintiff, v. JERRY BURT, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

ANTONIO VINCENT GRAY, Plaintiff, v. JERRY BURT, Defendant.

No. C12-0070-LRR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION

DATED: March 11, 2014

ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

The matter before the court is an order dated November 27, 2012 (docket no. 11). Pursuant to such order, the court directed the plaintiff to submit an initial partial payment of the filing fee and monthly payments thereafter. The plaintiff only complied with the court's former directive. Namely, the plaintiff submitted an initial partial payment of the filing fee and one monthly payment. However, since making one monthly payment in March of 2013, the plaintiff took no steps to make certain that he submitted monthly payments thereafter. Because he has failed to make additional monthly payments, it is appropriate to dismiss the plaintiff's action. Despite the plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's directive, the court deems it appropriate to review the merits of the plaintiff's complaint and supplement.¹

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A pro se complaint must be liberally construed. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam); Smith v. St. Bernards Reg'l Med. Ctr., 19 F.3d 1254, 1255 (8th Cir. 1994). In addition, unless the facts allegedare clearly baseless, they must be weighed in favor of the plaintiff. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). A court, however, can dismiss at any time a complaint filed in forma pauperis if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on 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); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). A claim is "frivolous" if it "lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); accord Cokeley v. Endell, 27 F.3d 331, 332 (8th Cir. 1994). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Accordingly, a court may review the complaint and dismiss sua sponte those claims that fail "'to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. . . see Parkhurst v. Tabor, 569 F.3d 861, 865 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bell Atl., 550 U.S. at 555), or that are premised on meritless legal theories or clearly lack any factual basis, see Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. See, e.g., Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. at 27 (considering frivolousness); Myers v. Vogal, 960 F.2d 750, 751 (8th Cir. 1992) (concluding that a district court may dismiss an action if an affirmative defense exists).

III. CLAIMS ASSERTED

The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, submitted a complaint to redress issues that are related to his confinement at the Anamosa State Penitentiary in Anamosa, Iowa. Jurisdiction appears to be predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue appears to be proper as the events giving rise to the instant action occurred in this district and the defendant is located in this district.

In the statement of claim portion of the complaint (docket no. 1), the plaintiff indicates the following:

I was a resident of the Anamosa mens' reformatory on 2-19-11. The defendant, Warden Jerry Burt, knew that inmate Deron Humes was a violent person and, on 2-19-11, Deron Humes assaulted me without a reason for doing so. Suchassault caused me permanent injury that did and does cause a lot of pain and suffering. I had to have a cadaver bone and plate put into my neck (a spinal fusion). The defendant, Warden Jerry Burt is required by law to provide a safe environment for me and he did not ensure that I was safe. He is responsible for my safety because I am under his care and supervision. I now have limited mobility, loss of coordination, nerve damage and pain and suffering.

In his supplement (docket no. 13), the plaintiff states that he is dissatisfied with the medical staff of the Clarinda Correction Facility because they opened mail that the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics sent to him. In addition, the plaintiff submitted with his supplement several exhibits, including but not limited to his medical records that the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics sent to him. As relief, the plaintiff states that he wants $1,000,000 in punitive damages, $1,000,000 for mental anguish, $1,000,000 for declaratory relief and whatever else is deemed appropriate.

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides, in relevant part:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory . . . , subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . .

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to provide a "broad remedy for violations of federally protected civil rights." Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 685 (1978). However, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides no substantive rights. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994); Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989); Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 617 (1979). "One cannot go into court and claim a 'violation of [42 U.S.C.] § 1983' — for [42 U.S.C.] §1983 by itself does not protect anyone against anything." Chapman, 441 U.S. at 617. Rather, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a remedy for violations of all "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws [of the United States]." 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see also Albright, 510 U.S. at 271 (stating that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 "merely provides 'a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred'" (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979))); Graham, 490 U.S. at 393-94 (same); Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 4 (1980) (stating that "Constitution and laws" means 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides remedies for violations of rights created by federal statute, as well as those created by the Constitution). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must establish: (1) "the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States", and (2) the alleged deprivation of that right "was committed by a person acting under color of state law." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Plaintiff's Claims²

Given the facts that are alleged in the complaint, the court concludes that the plaintiff's assertions do not give rise to a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Theplaintiff's claim against Jerry Burt fails because liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may not be grounded upon a respondeat superior theory. See Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989); Parrish v. Ball, 594 F.3d 993, 997 (8th Cir. 2010); Chambers v. St. Louis County, 247 F. App'x 846, 848 (8th Cir. 2007); Tlamka v. Serrel, 244 F.3d 628, 635 (8th Cir. 2001). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, Jerry Burt is not liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 merely because he is the warden of the Anamosa State Penitentiary. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (stating that a plaintiff must plead that each defendant, through defendant's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution).

In addition, although it is true that prisoners have a right to be free from violence at the hands of other prisoners, see Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994); see also Latimore v. Widseth, 7 F.3d 709, 712 (8th Cir. 1993) (holding that a plaintiff's "Eighth Amendment right . . . 'to be protected from harm by fellow inmates'" is "well established in the law" (quoting Smith v. Marcantonio, 910 F.2d 500, 501 (8th Cir. 1990) )), not "every injury suffered by one prisoner at the hands of another . . . translates into constitutional liability for prison officials responsible for the victim's safety." Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; see also Andrews v. Siegel, 929 F.2d 1326, 1330-31 (8th Cir. 1991) (noting that "some violence in prisons may be unavoidable due to the character of the prisoners" (quoting Martin v. White, 742 F.2d 469, 475 (8th Cir. 1984)) (internal quotation mark omitted)). Rather, to establish an "unconstitutional failure to protect from harm [claim], [the plaintiff] must show (1) an 'objectively, sufficiently serious' deprivation, meaning that he was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm, and (2) that the defendant was deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of serious harm." Schoelch v. Mitchell, 625 F.3d 1041, 1046 (8th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted) (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834); accord Crow v. Montgomery, 403 F.3d 598, 601-02 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Pagels v. Morrison, 335 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2003) and Jackson v. Everett, 140 F.3d 1149, 1151 (8th Cir. 1998)); see also Blades v. Schuetzle, 302 F.3d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 2002) (discussing what must be established to succeed ona constitutional failure to protect claim); Jensen v. Clarke, 94 F.3d 1191, 1197 (8th Cir. 1996) (stating that the first requirement is intended to "ensure[] that the deprivation is sufficiently serious to amount to a deprivation of constitutional dimension" and the second requirement is intended to "ensure[] that 'only the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain implicates the [Constitution]'" (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991))).

Here, it cannot be said that any "act or omission [by the named defendant resulted] in the denial of 'the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.'" Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)). The plaintiff fails to allege that the defendant was "'aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exist[ed].'" Schoelc...