United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
OPINION AND ORDER
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
L. Samuels, currently an inmate of the East Arkansas Regional
Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction
("ADC"), has filed a civil rights action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds pro se and in
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. §
to the allegations of the Amended Complaint (Doc. 6), while
Samuels was confined in the Washington County Detention
Center in July and August of 2019, the floor in A-block,
Q-pod was wet and slippery, causing Samuels to slip on three
occasions. On one such occasion, Samuels injured himself, and
Deputy Rex, who was present, did not pay attention to
"anyone screaming at him to get medical attention"
for Samuels. Samuels has sued Deputy Rex in his official
August 1, 2019, after falling the third time, Samuels alleges
he asked Deputy Self and a "black shirt" deputy to
take him to "medical." Both refused. Deputy Self
advised him to put his request on the kiosk. Samuels has sued
Deputy Self in his official capacity only.
the IFP statute, 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; (2) fail to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted; or, (3) seek
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii).
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 Atl. 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)).
1983 requires proof of two elements: (1) the conduct
complained of must be committed by a person acting under
color of state law, and (2) the conduct must deprive the
plaintiff of rights or privileges secured by the Constitution
or laws of the United States.
Eighth Amendment in General
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." Cnty. of Sacramento
v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 851 (1998) (quotations and
citation omitted). The Constitution does not mandate
comfortable prisons, but neither does it permit inhumane
ones. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994).
The Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth
Amendment forbids conditions that involve the "wanton
and unnecessary infliction of pain, " or are
"grossly disproportionate to the severity of the
crime." Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347
prisoner alleging an Eighth Amendment violation must prove
both an objective and subjective element." Revels v.
Vincenz,382 F.3d 870, 875 (8th Cir. 2004) (citing
Wilson v. Setter,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). The standards against which a court measures ...