United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
a civil rights action provisionally filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable Susan O.
Hickey, United States District Judge, referred this case to
the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and
case is before the Court for preservice screening under the
provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court has the
obligation to screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of
a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
filed his initial Complaint on April 25, 2018. (ECF No. 1).
That same day, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an
Amended Complaint to clarify his claims against Defendants
and to submit an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP). (ECF No. 2). On May 11, Plaintiff filed
his IFP application and Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 4, 5).
His application to proceed IFP was granted on May 18, 2018.
(ECF No. 8).
alleges his constitutional rights were violated while he was
incarcerated in the Miller County Detention Center (MCDC) as
a pretrial detainee. Plaintiff alleges his rights were
violated by “inadequate and unsanitary housing.”
(ECF No. 4 at 4). He alleges that the unsanitary conditions
gave him rashes and caused him to have difficulty breathing.
(Id. at 5). He further alleges Nurse King denied him
medical care for his rashes and breathing difficulties
“due to the issues I wrote on my sick call request 2,
847, 633.” (Id. at 5).
proceeds against Defendants in their official and personal
capacity. (Id. at 5, 6). Plaintiff seeks
compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at 7).
the PLRA, the Court is obligated to screen the case prior to
service of process being issued. The Court must dismiss a
complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that:
(1) are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted; or, (2) seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in
law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). A claim fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted if it does not allege “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “In evaluating whether a pro
se plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts to state a
claim, we hold ‘a pro se complaint, however
inartfully pleaded ... to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'” Jackson
v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). Even a
pro se Plaintiff must allege specific facts
sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. Sargent,
780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).
failed to state a plausible claim against any Defendant for
“inadequate and unsanitary” conditions at the
MCDC. “[W]hen the State takes a person into its custody
and holds him there against his will, the Constitution
imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some
responsibility for his safety and general well-being.”
Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998)
(citation omitted). The Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual
punishment. U.S. Const. amend. VIII. Detention centers must
provide pretrial detainees with “reasonably adequate
sanitation, personal hygiene, and laundry privileges . . .
.” Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1045
(8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Howard v. Adkison, 887 F.2d
134, 137 (8th Cir. 1989)). The Eighth Amendment also
prohibits punishments that deprive inmates of the minimal
civilized measure of life's necessities. Smith v.
Copeland, 87 F.3d 265, 268 (8th Cir. 1996); see also
Hall v. Dalton, 34 F.3d 648, 650 (8th Cir. 1994)
(“[I]n this circuit, the standards applied to Eighth
Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims have been the
prisoner alleging an Eighth Amendment violation must prove
both an objective and subjective element. See Revels v.
Vincenz,382 F.3d 870, 875 (8th Cir. 2004) (citing
Wilson v. Seiter,501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). “The
defendant's conduct must objectively rise to the level of
a constitutional violation by depriving the plaintiff of the
minimal civilized measure of life's necessities. The
defendant's conduct must also reflect a subjective state
of mind evincing deliberate indifference to the health or
safety of the prisoner.” Revels, 382 F.3d at
875 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Deliberate indifference is established when the Plaintiff
shows “the defendant was substantially aware of but
disregarded an excessive risk to inmate health or
safety.” Id. The standards against which a
court measures prison conditions are “the evolving
standards of ...