Case ID: f-appx_403/html/0559-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Theoppolis SIMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EMANUAL, LT., Connell, CO, Bell, CO, N. Davis, CO, DefendantsAppellees.
    No. 09-5346-pr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 14, 2010.
    Theoppolis Sims, pro se, Cheshire, CT, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Richard T. Biggar, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Hartford, CT, for Defendants-Appellees.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Theoppolis Sims (“plaintiff’), pro se, appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his complaint sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff filed his complaint against a Correctional Lieutenant and three Correctional Officers, in their individual capacities, alleging cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this matter.

To state an Eighth Amendment claim, plaintiff must demonstrate both that he was incarcerated under conditions that posed a substantial risk of serious harm, and that defendants possessed culpable intent — that is, that defendants knew that the plaintiff faced a substantial risk to his health or safety and disregarded that risk by failing to take corrective action. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). Plaintiffs conditions of confinement, moreover, must meet “minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities,” Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991), which means that prison officials must provide for an inmate’s “basic human needs,” such as food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 200, 109 S.Ct. 998, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989).

A review of the record reveals that the District Court correctly found that plaintiff had alleged no facts suggesting that his basic needs were not met or that defendants possessed culpable intent, and that the incident did not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation.

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of plaintiffs’ arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.