Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_20-cv-00047/USCOURTS-ared-4_20-cv-00047-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

CENTRAL DIVISION

JOHNATHON JAMES BEAVER, PLAINTIFF

ADC #156658

V. CASE NO. 4:20-CV-47-BRW-BD

GARCIA, et al. DEFENDANTS

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

I. Procedure for Filing Objections: 

This Recommendation has been sent to Judge Billy Roy Wilson. Mr. Beaver may 

file written objections if he disagrees with the findings or conclusions set out in the 

Recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal 

basis for the objection. 

To be considered, objections must be received in the office of the Court Clerk 

within 14 days. If no objections are filed, Judge Wilson can adopt this Recommendation 

without independently reviewing the record. If he does not file objections, Mr. Beaver 

may waive any right to appeal questions of fact. 

II. Discussion:

A. Background

Johnathon James Beaver, an Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) inmate, 

filed this civil rights lawsuit without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

(Docket entry #2) In his complaint, Mr. Beaver alleges that he was left in an unsanitary 

cell without running water or cleaning products for 24 to 36 hours in September of 2018. 

Case 4:20-cv-00047-BRW Document 4 Filed 01/16/20 Page 1 of 3
2

B. Standard

Before ordering service of process, federal courts must review prisoner complaints 

that seek relief from a government entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

After assessing the complaint, the Court must dismiss claims that fail to adequately state 

claims for relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). As explained below, Mr. Beaver’s complaint 

should not move forward because his allegations, even if true, fail to state federal claims.

C. Conditions of Confinement

Mr. Beaver alleges that an inmate housed in a cell close to him flooded his cell. 

The water from the neighboring cell came into his cell and appeared brown. Mr. Beaver 

assumed the water contained excrement. ADC officers turned off the water to Mr. 

Beaver’s cell; and even though Mr. Beaver requested cleaning supplies, he was not 

provided those supplies until the following day. Mr. Beaver also complains that he was 

forced to eat in the unsanitary conditions. 

To state a claim that his conditions of confinement were unconstitutional, Mr. 

Beaver must allege that he suffered a deprivation that was “sufficiently serious” enough 

to deny him “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,” or to pose “a 

substantial risk of serious harm” to his health or safety. In addition, he must state fact 

showing that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm posed by the 

deprivation. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Deliberate indifference is a 

higher standard than mere negligence and is defined as a “reckless disregard of the 

known risk.” Holden v. Hirner, 663 F.3d 336, 341 (8th Cir. 2011); Reynolds v. Dormire, 

636 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2011).

Case 4:20-cv-00047-BRW Document 4 Filed 01/16/20 Page 2 of 3
3

Under current case law, exposure to human waste for a short time does not rise to 

the level of a constitutional violation. Goldman v. Forbus, 17 Fed. Appx. 487, 488 (8th 

Cir. 2001) (no constitutional violation where detainee slept six nights on the floor next to 

a toilet); Smith v. Copeland, 87 F.3d 265, 269 (8th Cir. 1996) (no constitutional violation 

from detainee’s exposure to “raw sewage” from an overflowing toilet for four days); and 

Whitnack v. Douglas County, 16 F.3d 954, 958 (8th Cir. 1994) (no constitutional 

violation from exposure to “deplorable” unsanitary cell conditions for “not more than 24 

hours”). The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has held that conditions worse than 

those Mr. Beaver endured were not severe enough to support a constitutional claim for 

relief. Thus, Mr. Beaver’s allegations, even if true, fall short of stating a constitutional 

violation. 

III. Conclusion:

The Court recommends that Mr. Beaver’s claims be DISMISSED, with prejudice. 

The Court further recommends that this dismissal constitute a “strike” for purposes of 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that the Court certify that an in forma pauperis appeal of this 

dismissal would be frivolous and would not be taken in good faith.

DATED, this 16th day of January, 2020.

_____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00047-BRW Document 4 Filed 01/16/20 Page 3 of 3