United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
ROBERT E. WOODWARD, ADC #166447 PLAINTIFF
WENDY KELLEY, et al. DEFENDANTS
Procedure for Filing Objections:
Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has
been sent to Chief Judge Brian S. Miller. Mr. Woodward may
file written objections with the Clerk of Court if he
disagrees with the Recommendation's findings or
conclusion. To be considered, objections must be filed with
the Clerk of Court within 14 days. Objections should be
specific and should include the factual or legal basis for
Woodward does not file objections, he risks waiving the right
to appeal questions of fact. And, if no objections are filed,
Judge Miller can adopt this Recommendation without
independently reviewing the record.
E. Woodward, an Arkansas Department of Correction
(“ADC”) inmate, filed this civil rights lawsuit
without the help of a lawyer. (Docket entry #2) In his
original complaint, Mr. Woodward alleged that the Delta
Regional Unit is overcrowded and lacks adequate security. He
failed to allege, however, that he suffered any injury as a
result of the alleged unconstitutional conditions.
than recommending dismissal of Mr. Woodward's complaint,
the Court allowed Mr. Woodward an opportunity to amend his
complaint. (#4) The Court specifically instructed Mr.
Woodward to explain what injury he suffered as a result of
the alleged unconstitutional conditions and to state how each
Defendant violated his rights and caused him injury. Mr.
Woodward has now filed his amended complaint. (#5)
on the allegations in Mr. Woodward's original and amended
complaints, the Court recommends that Mr. Woodward's
claims be DISMISSED, without prejudice.
Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to
review complaints filed by prisoners and to dismiss claims
that do not state a claim for relief before ordering service
of process. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The Court has reviewed
the original and amended complaints in this case and has
liberally construed Mr. Woodward's allegations. Even if
all allegations in the complaints are true, Mr. Woodward has
not stated a federal claim for relief.
amended complaint, Mr. Woodward alleges that while he was
housed at the Delta Regional Unit for 63 days there was not
adequate security; he was consistently deprived of sleep; as
a result of working in the field, he suffered from
cellulitis; he was “deprived of access to a shower most
of the time”; and the toilet, sink, and shower area
the Constitution “does not mandate comfortable prisons,
” inmates are protected from “extreme
deprivations” that deny “the minimal civilized
measure of life's necessities.” Hudson v.
McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992); Rhodes v.
Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347-49 (1981). An inmate can
claim damages for conditions that pose “an excessive
risk to inmate health or safety.” Revels v.
Vincenz, 382 F.3d 870, 875 (8th Cir. 2004) (citing
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994)).
Conditions, however, must be sufficiently serious for the
court to examine whether prison officials acted with
deliberate indifference to inmate health and safety.
Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302 (1991).
other than Mr. Woodward's allegation that he suffered
from cellulitis as a result of being assigned to work in the
field, he has not alleged any other injury caused by ...