Torcasio v. Murray

• Decision Date: 14 September 1994
• Docket Number: Civ.A. No. 3:92cv558.
• Citation: 862 F. Supp. 1482
• Parties: Anthony TORCASIO v. Edward MURRAY, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia

862 F. Supp. 1482

Anthony TORCASIO v. Edward MURRAY, et al.

Civ.A. No. 3:92cv558.

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division.

September 14, 1994.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Anthony Torcasio, pro se.

Mark R. Davis, Office of Atty. Gen., Richmond, VA, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RICHARD L. WILLIAMS, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Anthony Torcasio, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 794, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 12132. Jurisdiction is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3).

In his original complaint plaintiff alleged the conditions at the Greensville Correctional Center violated the Constitution and statutes of the United States. By Order entered May 20, 1993, the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Section 1983 claims and found plaintiff's remaining claims to be moot since plaintiff had been transferred to the Keen Mountain Correctional Center (KMCC). The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the constitutional claims but vacated the finding that plaintiff's statutory claims were rendered moot by his transfer. The Court of Appeals remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the facilities at Keen Mountain were the same as those at Greensville, and, if so, whether such facilities violate 29 U.S.C. § 794 or 42 U.S.C. 12132.

On November 29, 1993, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Western District of Virginia, Torcasio v. Murray, 93CV-0655-R, contesting his living conditions at the Keen Mountain Correctional Center. By Order dated December 16, 1993, the case was transferred to this Court. It was redesignated 3:93CV856. By Memorandum and Order entered February 16, 1994, Torcasio v. Murray, 3:92CV558 and Torcasio v. Murray, 3:93CV856 were consolidated.

Plaintiff is a thirty-three year old male. He is 5' 7" tall, weighs in excess of four hundred sixty (460) pounds and has a girth of 78". Plaintiff asserts his obesity causes him to suffer from the following disabilities:

1) limited walking range, 2) inability to climb steps or hills, 3) back pain, 4) inability to bend over, 5) cannot stand or lay down for prolonged periods of time, 6) sleep apnea¹, 7) extremely vulnerable to body imbalances.

Upon arrival at KMCC plaintiff was initially placed in the infirmary. The infirmary at KMCC was equipped with handicap facilities, i.e., wheelchair accessible, side railings, wide bathroom access, etc. However, because inmates confined to the infirmary are entitled to less freedom and privileges than other inmates, plaintiff requested he be moved to the general population. Subsequently, plaintiff was moved to a single occupancy cell equipped with a hospital bed² and a reinforced chair. Plaintiff asserts a number of conditions of confinement violated his constitutional and statutory rights. Listed below are plaintiff's claims, the defendants' response indicating what actions they took, and plaintiff's rebuttal to the response.³

Claim A: The Shower

1) The showers at KMCC are raised seventeen inches from the floor of the bathroom. There is an eight inch step leading from the bathroom floor to the shower stall. 2) The handrail outside of the stall is too small and improperly located to be of any real assistance to plaintiff. 3) There is no other assistance to help plaintiff enter and exit the stall. 4) The entrance to the shower stall is only 23½" wide. 5) The above deficiencies subject plaintiff to cuts, abrasions, ridicule, and fear of falling whenever using the shower facilities.

Defendants' response: The authorities at KMC constructed bars or handles in plaintiff's shower area in order to facilitate his showering needs. The shower stalls easily accommodate an individual of plaintiff's girth. There are rubber mats on the floor outside the shower which provide protection against wet conditions.

Plaintiff's rebuttal: The handrails in the shower are inadequate. There are rubber mats in front of the showers but the steps are uncovered and slippery. There is no chair in the shower area for handicapped people to use. Plaintiff can only wash himself with one hand because he must balance himself with the other hand. There should be a chair in the shower area to help plaintiff dry himself off. Defendants were well aware of the health hazards posed to plaintiff by normal shower facilities as evidenced by the notation in his prison medical records form 1991.

Claim B: The Toilet

1) There are no handrails in plaintiff's cell to assist him in the use of his toilet. 2) The failure to provide handrails for plaintiffs toilet has made it difficult for him to use his bathroom.

Defendant's response: Dr. Quinones states that there is no medical reason why defendant's toilet should be a problem.

Plaintiff's rebuttal: Due to plaintiff's great weight his groin and genitals are often submerged in the toilet bowl.

Claim C: The Pod Tables

1) The pod tables do not accommodate someone of plaintiff's girth. 2) The table cuts and bruises plaintiff if he attempts to sit at the pod table facing in.

Defendant's response: Prison authorities have provided plaintiff with a reinforced chair in his cell which he can also use in the pod.

Plaintiff's rebuttal: Plaintiff asserts the defendants knew his bad back prevents him from moving the heavy chair.

Claim D: The Cell Doors

1) The cell doors are 23½ inches wide, accordingly plaintiff is forced to enter the cell sideways. 2) Plaintiff is subject to ridicule and in some instances physical pain from his entry and exit from the cell. Defendants' response: Defendants have seen plaintiff enter and exit cells without any difficulty. Dr. Quinones is unaware of plaintiff suffering any scrapes or bruises suffered from entering or exiting a cell. Plaintiff's rebuttal: Plaintiff asserts that he has told the doctor about the scrapes he suffered entering and exiting cells. Plaintiff asserts that by the time he is able to see the doctor his wounds have healed.

Claim E: Outdoor Recreational Activities

1) The recreation yard is too far from plaintiff's cell. 2) The prison does not offer alternative outdoor recreational activities for someone, like plaintiff who can not walk or stand for long periods of time. 3) There are no suitable chairs for someone of plaintiff's girth in the outdoor recreation yard.

Defendants' response: Dr. Quinones states that he has prescribed walking as part of his medical treatment for plaintiff's condition. Dr. Quinones states that he saw plaintiff walking about the prison without apparent signs of distress. Dr. Quinones further states that plaintiff's physical condition does not allow him to participate in normal outdoor recreational activities. There are sitting benches and bleachers in the yard at KMCC.

Plaintiff's rebuttal: The seating in the yard is far below the standard that Dr. Quinones prescribed when he ordered a special chair for plaintiff's cell. The benches and tables in the yard are inadequate for plaintiff because they do not provide back support. The seating in the yard is too low and plaintiff had difficulty getting up. Additionally, the seating in the yard is not padded as plaintiff requires to prevent sores. Plaintiff reasserts that the yard is too far from his cell.

Claim F: Indoor Recreational Activities

1) The steel tables in the recreation area do not accommodate a person of plaintiff's girth. 2) Plaintiff's girth prevents him from playing the indoor recreational activities provided by the prison, i.e. weightlifting, pool, pingpong and foosball.

Defendants' response: Dr. Quinones states that plaintiff's physical condition does not permit him to engage in routine athletics and other activities within the gymnasium and recreational areas.

Claim G: The Building Lobby

1) The lobby area is sometimes wet and slippery. The prison needs to place non-skid matting down in the lobby. Plaintiff's girth makes him more susceptible to slipping and injuring himself severely.

Claim H: The Dining Hall

1) The tables and chairs in the dining hall are inadequate to accommodate a person of plaintiff's girth. 2) Plaintiff is forced to stand in line for long periods of time waiting for his food. 3) Plaintiff's girth subjects him to additional verbal abuse from inmates and correctional officers while maneuvering through the narrow food lines. 4) The floor in the dining hall can become wet and slippery, especially in front of the tray window. The prison needs to place non-skid matting down in potentially hazardous areas throughout the dining hall.

Claim I: Medical Transportation

There are no vehicles at Keen Mountain for transporting the disabled. Plaintiff is forced to step on milk crates in order to enter or exit the vehicles at the prison.

Claim J: Personal Aid

1) The prison refuses to provide aid to plaintiff in his daily life functions such as dressing, personal hygiene, and cell maintenance. 2) At night, the prison does not provide plaintiff with an adequate means of signaling the staff in case of a medical emergency. There is a call button in plaintiff's cell, however the guards do not respond in a timely fashion, when they respond at all.

Claim K: The Commissary Window/Pill Line

There is no seating offered at the commissary window or pill line.

Claim L: The Location of the Housing Unit

1) Plaintiff's housing unit is located over one hundred yards away from every other support facilities, i.e. gym, medical, law library, etc. 2) Plaintiff's weight makes it difficult for him to make the frequent trips to the support facilities.

Defendants' response: Plaintiff's cell is on the first floor in a pod that is the closest to the canteen, medical department, and pill line. Additionally, Dr. Quinones has prescribed walking as part of plaintiff's medical treatment. Plaintiff is given extra time to get from place to place.

Plaintiff's rebuttal: Plaintiff is not given extra time to

...