Hickman v. Hudson

• Decision Date: 02 March 1983
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 82-0562-R.
• Citation: 557 F. Supp. 1341
• Parties: George HICKMAN, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Sheriff Alvin HUDSON, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia

557 F. Supp. 1341

George HICKMAN, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Sheriff Alvin HUDSON, et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 82-0562-R.

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division.

March 2, 1983.

George Hickman, Jr., pro se.

Robert F. Rider, Roanoke, Va., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TURK, Chief Judge.

George Hickman, Jr., a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Sheriff Alvin Hudson and Deputy Henderson for an alleged violation of his constitutional rights. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3). This action is before the court on defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state an actionable claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's claim arises out of an incident that allegedly occurred while he was incarcerated at the Roanoke City Jail awaiting transfer to the state penitentiary. He alleges in his complaint that on June 29, 1982, at approximately 5:00 p.m., defendant Deputy Henderson negligently closed a cell door on plaintiff's right hand while he was attempting to remove a face cloth that was stuck in the cell door. Plaintiff further alleges that the cell door severed the tip of his middle finger, causing him extreme mental anguish and pain. Plaintiff received medical treatment immediately after the accident, but he was in pain all that night as he did not receive any pain medication until the next day. He contends that the deputy's negligence subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment. As relief, plaintiff seeks $200,000 in damages.

In his answer to the complaint, Sheriff Hudson denied that any one named "Henderson" was in his employ during the period alleged by plaintiff. He further denied that he or anyone in his employ negligently closed a cell door on the occasion alleged by plaintiff or that the alleged incident took place on June 29, 1982. In addition, Sheriff Hudson moved to dismiss the complaint on various grounds, including failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id.

The court notified plaintiff of defendants' answer and motion to dismiss and gave him fifteen days to submit relevant evidence in support of his position. The notice warned that his failure to respond may, if appropriate, result in summary judgment being granted for defendants.

After being granted his request for an extension of time in which to file his response to the defendants' answer and motion to dismiss, plaintiff filed an affidavit in which he elaborated on and corrected the allegations in his complaint. Plaintiff stated that the incident occurred on June 28, 1982, and that he had learned that "Henderson" was the deputy's nickname. Plaintiff reportedly wrote a letter to Sheriff Hudson in an attempt to identify the deputy involved in the incident, to which the Sheriff responded by denying knowledge of any incident occurring on that date.

Defendants' motion to dismiss is now ready for disposition.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

Two essential elements must be alleged in order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. First, there must be conduct committed by a person acting under color of state law; secondly, the conduct must have deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981).

In addition, the defendant must have personally participated or acquiesced in the alleged constitutional violation because the doctrine of respondeat superior is inapplicable to section 1983 suits. Monell v. Dep't of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2037, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926 (4th Cir. 1977). Even liberally construed, plaintiff's complaint and affidavit contain no allegation or evidence that Sheriff Hudson personally participated or acquiesced in the deputy's alleged negligence. Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Sheriff Hudson.

Deputy "Henderson" was, however, personally involved in the alleged constitutional violation and undoubtedly acted under color of state law when closing the cell door. The issue remains whether the alleged negligent closing of the cell door on plaintiff's hand violated his eighth amendment right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment or any other constitutional right.

A. Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Because the compatibility of punishments with the eighth amendment is in part determined by "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society," Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101, 78 S.Ct. 590, 598, 2 L.Ed.2d 630 (1958), a concrete definition of cruel and unusual punishment is difficult. Nevertheless, as a general rule, "only the `unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain' constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment." Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 670, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 1412, 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977) (citations omitted); see Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2925, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). Thus, "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners violates the eighth amendment because it constitutes the `unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain' ...." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 291, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). Similarly, the unjustified or excessive use of force or infliction of bodily harm upon a prisoner amounts to cruel and unusual punishment when such is inspired by malice or sadism for the purpose of causing harm rather than a good faith effort to maintain or restore order. See King v. Blankenship, 636 F.2d 70, 72-73 (4th Cir.1980).

But "not every use of excessive force gives rise to a cause of action under § 1983 merely because it gives rise to a cause of action under state tort law," id. at 72, because "section 1983 imposes liability for violations of rights protected by the Constitution, not for violations of duties of care arising out of tort law." Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 146, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 2695, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979) (emphasis added).

Although the supra authority suggests that an intent to be cruel or cause harm is essential to state a claim under the eighth amendment, in a case involving an alleged eighth amendment violation resulting from a prison guard's negligent shooting of an inmate, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that "improper motive is not a prerequisite to suit under section 1983." Roberts v. Williams, 456 F.2d 819, 826 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 866, 92 S.Ct. 83, 30 L.Ed.2d 110 (1971). And in cases where prisoners have alleged that their eighth amendment rights were violated by prison officials' negligent failure to protect them from attacks by fellow inmates, the Fifth Circuit has held that section 1983 "gives a remedy ... for negligent acts which result in injuries to the prisoner." Fox v. Sullivan, 539 F.2d 1065, 1066 (5th Cir.1976), later app., 558 F.2d 235 (1977); Parker v. McKeithen, 488 F.2d 553, 556 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 838, 95 S.Ct. 67, 42 L.Ed.2d 65 (1974). Similarly, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held in Withers v. Levine, 615 F.2d 158, 162 (4th Cir.) (prison officials' negligent failure to protect prisoners from aggressive sexual assaults), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 849, 101 S.Ct. 136, 66 L.Ed.2d 59 (1980), that

when there is present in a prison or in an identifiable portion of it, a pervasive risk of harm to all prisoners, or to an identifiable group of them, the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment requires that prison officials exercise reasonable care to provide reasonable protection from such unreasonable risk of harm. Given the pervasive and unreasonable risk of harm, negligence by prison officials in their performance of their duty of care is a violation of the constitutional right and actionable under § 1983.

But while the Fourth Circuit stated that "negligence by a state official under some circumstances may itself violate a constitutionally protected right," id., it also recognized that "the Constitution of the United States does not lend its protection to every victim of a common law tort by state officials and employees." Id.

Thus, although negligence by prison officials may constitute cruel and unusual punishment proscribed by the eighth amendment, a close reading of the supra authorities reveals that negligent conduct by state officials violates the eighth amendment in only certain circumstances. For example, the Fourth Circuit emphasized that a prisoner could recover for prison officials' negligent failure to protect him from violence or sexual assault from his fellow inmates only when there was "a pervasive risk of harm to inmates from other prisoners ...." Withers v. Levine, 615 F.2d at 161, quoting, Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889 (4th Cir.1973). In turn, a "pervasive risk of harm" was shown by proof that "violence and sexual assaults occur at the prison with sufficient frequency that the younger prisoners, particularly those slightly built, are put in reasonable fear for their safety and to reasonable apprise prison officials of the existence of the problem and the need for protective measures." Id. at 161. Thus, the risk of harm must be such as to put prison officials on notice that the safety problem exists and that protective measures are needed. Under such circumstances, the absence of any procedure or guideline to protect prisoners from the risk of harm is "probably much more than simple negligence;" id. at 162, rather, it amounts to "complete indifference to the problem of safety." Id. In short, negligent conduct in the context of a "pervasive and unreasonable risk of harm" constitutes complete indifference to prisoners' safety needs in violation of the eighth amendment.

This analysis is consistent with the Fifth Circuit's ...