Wassil v. Casto
| Decision Date | 12 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-06020 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
| Parties | CHARLES WASSIL; STEVEN RHODES; JOSHUA BELCHER; QUENTON SHEFFIELD, Plaintiffs, v. RONALD B. CASTO, Interim Administrator, Western Regional Jail; MISTY BENNETT, Prime Care Medical Inc. Admin; BRADLEY BYRD, Aramark Food Service Director, Defendants. |
Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs' Objections (ECF No. 13) to the Magistrate's Proposed Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 12). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs' Objections (ECF No. 13) are DENIED, and the Magistrate's Proposed Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 12) are ADOPTED in full. The Court accordingly DISMISSES the Complaint with prejudice (ECF No. 1). Furthermore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff Charles Wassil's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4), Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 8), and Motion to Amend the Complaint to substitute Larry Crawford as a defendant in place of Ronald Casto (ECF No. 9). This matter is hereby removed from the docket of this Court.
On February 4, 2013, Plaintiff Charles Wassil—at that time an inmate at Western Regional Jail ("WRJ")—was eating dinner with Plaintiffs and fellow inmates Steven Rhodes, Joshua Belcher, and Quenton Sheffield. While eating his mashed potatoes, Mr. Wassil discovered a dead rodent in the mashed potatoes on this tray. He showed the other inmates and notified a corrections officer. A second corrections officer was called, who took the tray of food. Pictures were taken and administrators wrote a report about the incident. Mr. Wassil promptly filed a grievance with WRJ administrator Michael Clark about the dead rat.
On February 6, 2013, Mr. Wassil met with WRJ administrators Ronald Casto and Henry Robinson, Jr., who informed Mr. Wassil that rat poison had been laid to solve the problem. Mr. Wassil told them that laying rat poison did not sufficiently rectify his grievance, noting that his two requests for preventative bloodwork following the rat incident had been denied. Mr. Wassil wanted bloodwork to be performed to determine if he had contracted a disease from the rat. Mr. Wassil also told the two administrators that corrections officers had mocked the inmates about the rat incident. Mr. Casto told Mr. Wassil to make a third request for bloodwork, which Mr. Wassil did; however, no bloodwork was completed, and Mr. Wassil sent a grievance to medical administrator Misty Bennett which went unanswered.
Mr. Casto returned the original grievance on February 7, 2013, stating that nothing more could be done. Mr. Wassil filed an appeal that same day; that appeal was later denied, noting that Mr. Casto "explained to [Mr. Wassil] the steps taken to prevent another such occurrence." Letter from Paul O'Dell, Feb. 20, 2013, ECF No. 13-1 at 7. Mr. Wassil filed a second appeal, which was also denied.
On March 17, 2013, a used rubber glove was found with the biscuits served to inmates. At lunch that same day, a chunk of raw potato the size of a baseball was served with the mashed potatoes. Mr. Casto was notified of this second mashed potato incident. On March 19, 2013, another baseball-sized raw potato was found in the mashed potatoes during lunch. Mr. Casto was shown the potato. According to Plaintiffs, jail administrators and kitchen staff "swear that raw food cannot come from the kitchen because they 'cook and mash' the food expertly." Compl. 11, ECF No. 1.
Plaintiffs, under the lead of Mr. Wassil, filed the pending pro se Complaint. Mr. Wassil subsequently filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 4, a Motion for Appointment of Counsel, ECF No. 8, and a Motion to Amend the Complaint to substitute WRJ administrator Larry Crawford as a defendant in place of interim administrator Ronald Casto, ECF No. 9. Mr. Wassil also filed an evidence letter, in which inmate Tyrease McMillon, who worked in the jail's kitchen in March 2013, revealed details about the kitchen's operations. ECF No. 7. Mr. McMillon said he saw inmates "place all kinds of things on trays," including placing a plastic glove on the tray of biscuits and gravy on March 17, 2013. Id. He said the inmates who work in the kitchen are not properly monitored and engage in problematic behavior because they are not given coffee and hot sauce. Also, he stated that the mouse would not have been placed on the tray if the jail had given the inmates "something" in celebration of the Super Bowl. Id.
On August 20, 2013, Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert issued Proposed Findings and Recommendations ("PF&R") in this matter, recommending that this Court dismiss the Complaint and deny the three pending motions. ECF No. 12. Mr. Wassil timely filed Objections on behalf of all Plaintiffs. ECF No. 8. The Objections describe additional food incidents in the jail and refute the Magistrate's conclusions. According to the Objections, on February 28, 2013, aninmate broke his tooth on a rock in the potatoes. On March 17, 2013, an earthworm was found in the potatoes. On April 22, 2013, an inmate received a whole tray of rotten potatoes. On June 10, 2013, four hairs were found in some macaroni and cheese.
Section II discusses the standard of review applicable to the PF&R. Section III addresses the legal standard for civil rights claims, in particular claims for violation of the Eighth Amendment. Section IV examines Plaintiffs' objections regarding food service at WRJ. Section V discusses objections regarding medical treatment. Lastly, Section VI addresses other miscellaneous objections.
This Court's review of the Magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations to which Plaintiffs object is de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) ( ). Therefore, this Court will review de novo the Magistrate's determination that neither the food services issues at WRJ nor the alleged deprivation of medical treatment amount to a Constitutional violation and that Plaintiffs therefore have not stated a claim for relief.
A complaint must be dismissed if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. When determining if a complaint fails to state a claim, the court accepts the factual allegations in the complaint as true, even when doubtful, and draws all reasonable inferences therefrom. As explained by the United States Supreme Court, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Facial plausibility exists when a claim contains "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id.
Special considerations arise when a case involves pro se pleadings, as is the case here. A court must construe pro se filings liberally, and "a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). In construing pro se filings liberally, however, the court must be careful not to "rewrite a petition to include claims that were never presented." Parker v. Champion, 148 F.3d 1219, 1222 (10th Cir. 1998). Also, the court need not "conjure up questions never squarely presented to" it. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
Plaintiffs are seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which states in pertinent part as follows:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, 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 . . . .
Id. In order to succeed, Plaintiffs must show that Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir. 1977) (quoting Bennett v. Gravelle, 323 F. Supp. 203, 214 (D. Md. 1971)).
Although Plaintiffs do not specify which Constitutional rights form the basis of their claims, their claims are most accurately viewed as falling within the Eighth Amendment, afinding which Plaintiffs did not dispute. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (). The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments. In addition to restraining the physical actions of prison officials, the Eighth Amendment "also imposes duties on these officials, who must provide humane conditions of confinement; prison officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and must 'take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates.'" Id. (quoting Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526-27 (1984)). To show a violation of the Eighth Amendment, two elements must be established: 1) "the prison official acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind (subjective component)" and 2) "the deprivation suffered or injury inflicted on the inmate was sufficiently serious ...
To continue reading
Request your trial