Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_14-cv-00133/USCOURTS-ared-2_14-cv-00133-0/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

NORTHERN DIVISION

BRADLEE RATLIFF,

ADC #128371 PLAINTIFF

v. 2:14CV00133-JM-JTK

DANNY BURL, et al. DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge James

M. Moody, Jr. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections

should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection

is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your

objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United

States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and

recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.

If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or

additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at

the same time that you file your written objections, include the following:

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.

2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing before the District Judge (if such a hearing

is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

 

3. The detail of any testimony desired to be introduced at the hearing before the District

1

Case 2:14-cv-00133-JM Document 7 Filed 01/08/15 Page 1 of 5
Judge in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other nontestimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the hearing before the District Judge.

From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional

evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge.

Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to:

Clerk, United States District Court

Eastern District of Arkansas

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

DISPOSITION

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Bradlee Ratliff is a state inmate confined at the East Arkansas Regional Unit of the

Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC). He filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against

three named Defendants, but did not include specific allegations of constitutional violations by any

of the individuals (Doc. No. 2). By Order dated December 4, 2014 (Doc. No. 5), this Court granted

Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis in this lawsuit and provided him the opportunity to

amend his Complaint. Plaintiff has not responded to the Order.

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, the Court finds it should be dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

II. Screening

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires federal courts to screen prisoner

complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. §

1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims

that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted;

2

Case 2:14-cv-00133-JM Document 7 Filed 01/08/15 Page 2 of 5
or (c) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §

1915A(b).

An action is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Whether a plaintiff is represented by counsel or is appearing

pro se, his complaint must allege specific facts sufficient to state a claim. See Martin v. Sargent, 780

F .2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir.1985).

An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough

facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544, 570 (2007). In reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must give the

complaint the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The

Court must also weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are

clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992).

III. Facts and Analysis

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges excessive noise at his Unit, but does not include specific

allegations against the three named Defendants. As noted in the December 4, 2014 Order, to support

an Eighth Amendment claim for relief, Plaintiff must allege that the condition was objectively,

sufficiently serious, and that the punishment imposed amounted to the “denial of ‘the minimal

civilized measure of life’s necessities.’” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (quoting

Rhodes v. Chapman, 425 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)). In addition, Plaintiff must allege that Defendants

acted with deliberate indifference to his need for health and safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. 

“Although the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment bars more

than physical torture, ‘discomfort compelled by conditions of confinement, without more, does not

3

Case 2:14-cv-00133-JM Document 7 Filed 01/08/15 Page 3 of 5
violate the amendment.’” Martin v. Byrd, No. 4:07cv01184SWW, 2008 WL 686936 * 4

(E.D.Ark.2008) (quoting Smith v. Coughlin, 748 F.2d 783, 787 (2d Cir. 1984) (other citations

omitted.)) “Conditions of confinement, however, constitute cruel and unusual punishment ‘only

when they have a mutually enforcing effect that produces the deprivation of a single, identifiable

human need such as food, warmth, or exercise.’” Martin, supra *4 (quoting Whitnack v. Douglas

County, 16 F.3d 954, 957 (8th Cir. 1994)). An inmate who slept without a mattress or blanket for

four days on a concrete slab in the winter was not denied the minimal civilized measures of life’s

necessities, in O’Leary v. Iowa State Men’s Reformatory, 79 F.3d 82, 84 (8th Cir. 1996). 

Furthermore, placement in a strip cell without clothes, water, mattress, pillow, sheets or blanket for

four days was found not unconstitutional in Williams v. Delo, 49 F.3d 442, 445 (8th Cir. 1995). 

Finally, in Seltzer-Bey v. Delo, 66 F.3d 961, 964 (8th Cir. 1995), the court held that plaintiff failed

to support a constitutional claim for relief based on his placement in a strip cell without clothes,

water, a mattress or blanket for two days, when he provided no evidence that he suffered any injury

or adverse health consequences or that the Defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk

to his health and safety.

In this case, Plaintiff’s Original Complaint fails to support an Eighth Amendment claim for

relief. Plaintiff does not allege he was deprived of an identifiable human need such as food, warmth,

or exercise. See Whitnack v. Douglas County, 16 F.3d at 957. Absent additional allegations

against the three named individuals, the Court finds that the Complaint should be dismissed, for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

IV. Conclusion

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that:

4

Case 2:14-cv-00133-JM Document 7 Filed 01/08/15 Page 4 of 5
1. Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendants be DISMISSED, for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted.

2. This dismissal constitute a “strike” within the meaning of the PLRA.1 

3. The Court certify that an in forma pauperis appeal from an Order and Judgment

dismissing this action would not be in good faith, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED this 8th day of January, 2015.

_____________________________________

JEROME T. KEARNEY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

The statute provides that a prisoner may not file an in forma pauperis civil rights action

or appeal if the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions, filed an action or appeal that was

dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failure to state a claim, unless the prisoner is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury.

5

Case 2:14-cv-00133-JM Document 7 Filed 01/08/15 Page 5 of 5