Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05214/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05214-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SMILEY JAMES HARRIS

a/k/a JAMES LaVELL HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAKE COUNTY JAIL; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-5214 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Smiley James Harris a/k/a James LaVell Harris, formerly an inmate at the Lake County

Jail, filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the

court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

BACKGROUND

In his complaint in this action, Harris claimed that the book swap policy in his housing

unit was unduly restrictive. The complaint alleged the following: Harris was housed in Pod B

of the jail on permanent maximum security housing status. In that housing pod, inmates were

allowed out of their cells for one hour every 48 hours. Inmates in Pod B were allowed only two

books in their cell – a religious book and one other book – and had no televisions in their cells.

Until September 8, 2009, inmates in Pod B were allowed to exchange their one non-religious

book for another book on the book cart during the time they were released from their cells once

every 48 hours. On or about September 8, 2009, the policy changed and the inmates were limited

Case 3:09-cv-05214-SI Document 5 Filed 04/01/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

to exchanging their non-religious books once every 72 hours or once every 96 hours and

required to do it under staff supervision. This change resulted “from alleged abuse by Pod B

inmates of the available book cart. This restriction of the book cart is/was not challenged

because of the alleged abuse of the book cart by Pod B inmates.” Complaint, p. 4. On

September 20, 2009, the policy changed again, and the book exchange was limited to once every

168 hours. On October 19, 2009, the book cart was removed from Pod B without notice or just

cause. (Harris suggested that the removal was permanent, but his complaint was written just two

days after the unexplained removal of the cart.) Harris thought this policy was unfair to new

inmates entering the pod after the abuses that prompted the policy change. He was not such an

inmate, however, because he was there before the policy change. He believes that “the average

Pod B inmate has read his one (1) other book within forty-eight (48) hours.” Complaint, p. 4.

Harris alleged that this rule change amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss

any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that

a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

At the relevant time, Harris was in the jail serving a sentence on a March 3, 2009

conviction. See Harris v. State of California, Case No. C 09-2829 SI, Petition, p. 2. Because

he was a convicted prisoner, his claim is considered under the Eighth Amendment rather than

Case 3:09-cv-05214-SI Document 5 Filed 04/01/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

the Fourteenth Amendment. 

The treatment a prisoner receives in jail and the conditions under which he is confined are

subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment, which does not mandate comfortable jails but

also does not permit inhumane ones. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). A

prisoner claiming an Eighth Amendment violation must show two things: (1) the deprivation

alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious and (2) the jail official possesses a sufficiently

culpable state of mind. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. 

The Eighth Amendment imposes duties on jailers to provide all prisoners with the basic

necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care and personal safety.

See id. at 832. Although the Eighth Amendment protects against cruel and unusual punishment,

this does not mean that federal courts can or should interfere whenever prisoners are

inconvenienced or suffer de minimis injuries. See, e.g., Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9-10

(1992) (8th Amendment excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of force);

Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1314-15 (9th Cir.) (temporary placement in safety

cell that was dirty and smelled bad did not constitute infliction of pain), amended, 75 F.3d 448

(9th Cir. 1995); Hernandez v. Denton, 861 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1988) (allegation that inmate

slept without mattress for one night is insufficient to state 8th Amendment violation and no

amendment can alter that deficiency), judgment vacated on other grounds, 493 U.S. 801 (1989);

DeMallory v. Cullen, 855 F.2d 442, 444 (7th Cir. 1988) (correctional officer spitting upon

prisoner does not rise to level of constitutional violation); Holloway v. Gunnell, 685 F.2d 150

(5th Cir. 1985) (no claim stated where prisoner forced to spend two days in hot dirty cell with no

water); Miles v. Konvalenka, 791 F. Supp. 212 (N.D. Ill. 1992) (single instance of finding mouse

in food not actionable); Vaga v. Parsley, 700 F. Supp. 879 (W.D. Tex. 1988) (burned out light

bulb, promptly replaced, does not violate 8th Amendment); Evans v. Fogg, 466 F. Supp. 949

(S.D.N.Y. 1979) (no claim stated by prisoner confined for 24 hours in refuse strewn cell and for

two days in flooded cell).

The limits on access to the book cart and even the elimination of the book cart did not

amount to cruel and unusual punishment. The deprivation of books for prisoners to read for

Case 3:09-cv-05214-SI Document 5 Filed 04/01/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

pleasure simply was not a sufficiently serious condition to satisfy the objective prong of an

Eighth Amendment claim. The claim must be dismissed. Leave to amend will not be granted

because it would be futile. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed without leave to amend because it

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The clerk shall close the file. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2010 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05214-SI Document 5 Filed 04/01/10 Page 4 of 4