United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
Rayburn, Plaintiff, Pro Se.
DEERE, Magistrate Judge.
Procedure for Filing Objections
Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been
sent to Judge Billy Roy Wilson. Mr. Rayburn may file written
objections to this Recommendation, but if he files
objections, they must be specific and must include the
factual or legal basis for the objection. Also, to be
considered, objections must be received in the office of the
United States District Court Clerk within fourteen (14) days
of this Recommendation.
objections are filed, Judge Wilson can adopt this
Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By
not objecting, Mr. Rayburn risks waiving his right to appeal
questions of fact.
Rayburn, a pre-trial detainee at the Arkansas County
Detention Center ("Detention Center"), filed this
lawsuit without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983.
(Docket entry #2) He complains that, in October 2015,
Defendant Tom Russell violated his constitutional rights by
placing him in a cell without clothes for twelve hours.
Unfortunately for Mr. Rayburn, his allegations do not rise to
the level of a constitutional violation.
courts are required to screen prisoner complaints that seek
relief from government employees, such as Defendant Russell.
The court must dismiss any claim that fails to state a
federal claim for relief. See 28 U.S.C. Â§ 1915A.
Mr. Rayburn alleges that, while he was on suicide watch at
the Detention Center, Defendant Russell placed him in a cell
without any clothes for a twelve-hour period. Mr. Rayburn
specifically alleges that he "was left in a holding cell
stark naked and freezing on a concrete slab." (#2 at
pre-trial detainee, Mr. Rayburn's claims are analyzed
under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Owens v. Scott County Jail, 328 F.3d 1026, 1027 (8th
Cir. 2003) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520,
535, 99 S.Ct. 1861 n. 16 (1979)). To succeed on this claim,
Mr. Rayburn must show that Defendant Russell's conduct
was intended to punish, Bell, 441 U.S. at 53-39, and
that Defendant Russell was deliberately indifferent to an
excessive risk to his health or safety. See Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).
Mr. Rayburn perceived Defendant Russell's actions as
punitive, "[a]n official's failure to alleviate a
significant risk that he should have perceived but did not,
while no cause for commendation, cannot... be condemned as
the infliction of punishment." Id. at 838.
Furthermore, the Eighth Circuit has "has not adopted an
unconditional prohibition against deprivations of
necessities." Green v. Baron, 879 F.2d 305, 310
(8th Cir. 1989) (citing Johnson v. Williams, 788
F.2d 1319, 1323 (8th Cir. 1986), and Rust v.
Grammer, 858 F.2d 411, 414 (8th Cir. 1988)). In fact,
the Court has held that "deprivations, such as clothing
or bedding from a suicidal person who is in custody, do not
violate the Constitution." Id. (citing
McMahon v. Beard, 583 F.2d 172, 175 (5th Cir. 1978).
Mr. Rayburn has not alleged the kind of extreme deprivations
that would lead the Court to conclude that he was deprived of
the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities. See
O'Leary v. Iowa State Men's Reformatory, 79
F.3d 82, 83-84 (8th Cir. 1996) (four days without underwear,
blankets, mattress, exercise, and visits not a constitutional
violation); Williams v. Delo,49 F.3d 442, 444 (8th
Cir. 1995) (four days without clothes, mattress, running
water, bedding, mail, hot food, and hygienic supplies not a
constitutional violation); Ingram v. Cole County,
2015 WL 5619211 (W.D. Mo. 2015) (seven hours without clothing
did not violate pre-trial detainee's due process rights).
Moreover, Mr. Rayburn has not alleged facts to show that
Defendant Russell was deliberately indifferent to his ...