United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
JOE PERKINS, JR. ADC #149163 PLAINTIFF
v.
WILLIAM STRAUGHN, et al. DEFENDANTS
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
I.
Procedure for Filing Objections
This
Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has
been sent to Judge Billy Roy Wilson. You may file written
objections to this Recommendation. If you file objections,
they must be specific and must include the factual or legal
basis for your objection.
Your
objections must be received in the office of the Court Clerk
within 14 days of the date this Recommendation is filed. If
no objections are filed, Judge Wilson can adopt this
Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By
not objecting, you may also waive any right to appeal
questions of fact.
II.
Discussion
A.
Background
Joe
Perkins, Jr., an Arkansas Department of Correction
(“ADC”) inmate, filed this lawsuit without the
help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket entry
#2) Because Mr. Perkins's original complaint was flawed,
he was given an opportunity to amend his complaint to remedy
the defects identified by the Court. (#4) Mr. Perkins has now
filed his amended complaint. (#5)
B.
Analysis
The
Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires
federal courts to screen prisoner complaints that seek relief
against a governmental entity, officer, or employee before
ordering service of process. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
Court must dismiss claims that are legally frivolous or
malicious; that fail to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted; or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from paying damages. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
When screening a complaint, the court must accept the truth
of the factual allegations set out in the complaint, and it
may consider the documents attached to the complaint.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009);
Reynolds v. Dormire, 636 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir.
2011).
C.
Failure to Protect Claim - Defendants Crawford and Norwood
In his
original and amended complaints, Mr. Perkins alleged that, in
October 2017, as Officer Brown (not a party to this lawsuit),
Defendant Norwood, and supervising officer Defendant Crawford
were escorting him to his cell, he was stabbed by inmate
Burnell. Mr. Perkins claims that, because inmate Burnell was
supposed to be in restrictive housing, the stabbing occurred
due to the “negligence” of Defendants Crawford
and Norwood. (#2 at p.4)
The
Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of “cruel and
unusual punishments.” U.S. Const. amend. VIII. This
includes an obligation for prison officials to take
“reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the
inmates [and] ... to protect prisoners from violence at the
hands of other prisoners.” Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 832-33, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994) (quotations
omitted). To establish a violation, however, Mr. Perkins must
plead facts showing that his incarceration with inmate
Burnell posed a substantial risk of serious harm (objective
component), and that Defendants Crawford and Norwood actually
knew of the risk, but either disregarded the risk or were
deliberately indifferent to that risk (subjective component).
Pagels v. Morrison, 335 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir.
2003); Jackson v. Everett, 140 F.3d 1149, 1151 (8th
Cir. 1998). Negligence, even gross negligence, cannot support
a claim based on deliberate indifference to inmate safety.
Based
on allegations in Mr. Perkins's complaint and amended
complaint, he cannot meet this burden. In his original
complaint, Mr. Perkins did not state whether either Defendant
Crawford or Defendant Norwood knew that inmate Burnell was in
Mr. Perkins's cell on the date of the stabbing incident
or whether either of these Defendants allowed inmate Burnell
to enter the cell on the date of the incident. In addition,
Mr. Perkins failed to explain whether he and inmate Burnell
had any history of altercations or problems prior to the
stabbing incident and, if so, whether either Defendant
Crawford or Norwood knew of those prior altercations or
problems.
In his
amended complaint, Mr. Perkins again failed to allege that
either Defendant Crawford or Defendant Norwood knew that
inmate Burnell was not in his assigned housing area on the
date of the stabbing; nor did he state that either Defendant
had knowledge of bad blood between Mr. Perkins and inmate
Burnell prior to the stabbing incident. Mr. Perkins
simply alleges that, “[i]f either officer had been
properly aware of their surrounding and the hostile
environment, they would have been aware of the verbal
confrontations and threats made prior to this
incident.” (#5 at p.2)
Based
on Mr. Perkins's vague and conclusory allegations, the
Court cannot conclude that either Defendant Crawford or
Defendant Norwood had actual knowledge that Mr. Perkins's
proximity to inmate Burnell posed a substantial risk of harm
to Mr. Perkins's safety. For that reason, Mr.
...