Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05114/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05114-1/pdf.json

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

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

GARY LAMON PUGH PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5114

 

SHERIFF TIM HELDER DEFENDANT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On August 29, 2006, a motion to dismiss was filed by the defendant (Doc. 10). By order

entered on October 18, 2006, the plaintiff, Gary Pugh, was directed to complete, sign, and return

a questionnaire that would serve as his response to the motion to dismiss (Doc. 13). 

Plaintiff responded to the motion to dismiss on November 17, 2006 (Doc. 15). The

motion to dismiss is before the undersigned for issuance of this report and recommendation.

BACKGROUND

According to the allegations of the complaint, on May 11, 2006, Gary Lamon Pugh

slipped and fell as he “departing the showers.” Complaint at page 4. Pugh alleges the slip and

fall was the result of “worn out flippers and the excessive overflow of water into the common

area.” Id. Pugh alleges the area had become a hazard. Id. He asserts nothing was done “after

several warnings.” Pugh alleges the fall caused severe injuries to his back. Id.

Pugh was incarcerated at the Washington CountyDetention Center (WCDC) from April

28, 2006, through July 21, 2006. Plaintiff’s Response (hereinafter Resp.) at ¶ 1. He was

incarcerated solely because of pending criminal charges. Id. at ¶ 2. 

Case 5:06-cv-05114-JLH Document 17 Filed 01/26/07 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

Pugh did not speak to, or communicate with, Sheriff Helder regarding his slip and fall.

Resp. at ¶ 3(A). However, prior to his fall, Pugh states he had made verbal complaints about the

slippers and the overflow of water into the common area. Id. at ¶ 3(B). Pugh states he was told

his slippers would be replaced and that there was nothing that could be done about the showers.

Id. 

Pugh was asked whether there were other individuals at the WCDC who he contended

violated his constitutional rights in connection with his slip and fall. Resp. at ¶ 3(C). He

responded: “No.” Id. 

Pugh was asked whether a custom or policy of Sheriff Helder or Washington County in

any way caused his fall. Resp. at ¶ 3(D). He responded as follows: “No. It was just one of

those situations where worn out slippers and an overflow of water in the common area lead to

my slip and fall. I was told the facility was having problem with the showers at the facility.” 

Id. 

Pugh indicates that from the time he became incarcerated at the WCDC, on April 28th,

he thought there was a problem with the water overflow. Resp. at ¶ 4. He would try to take a

shower when there were not many other inmates showering but sometimes he indicates that was

not possible. Id. 

Pugh indicates his slippers were so worn that the middle was cracked all the way across

from the big toe to the little toe. Resp. at ¶ 5. As a result, the sole would fold under all the way.

Id. 

Case 5:06-cv-05114-JLH Document 17 Filed 01/26/07 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

Prior to his fall, Pugh does not know if any other inmates fell in the shower area. Resp.

at ¶ 6. However, he did see several people slip and almost fall during his incarceration at the

WCDC. Id. He does not know of anyone else who fell. Id. 

Pugh indicates that what happened was a freak accident. Resp. at page 9. However, he

asserts he was in no pain before his incarceration but due to the slip and fall he now has severe

back pain. Id. Because of the lack of proper medical attention and the fall, Pugh states he has

been told fluid has developed in the facet joint at the L4-L5 disc. Resp. at ¶ 7. 

Pugh believes the WCDC should have been responsible for his medical bills and he

should have had better follow-up medical treatment after the fall. Resp. at page 9. Pugh asserts

they were told if his back pain continued an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) should be done

but they would not schedule one. Id.

Pugh has attached to his response to the motion to dismiss copies of a number of

grievances, witness statements, and a handwritten log he kept regarding his care following the

fall. The documents indicate, among other things, that Pugh was seen by the facility doctor, Dr.

Howard, and did not believe he was receiving adequate medical care for his injuries.

DISCUSSION

Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action for the deprivation, under color of law,

of a citizen's "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" of the

United States. In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must allege that the

defendant acted under color of state law and that he violated a right secured by the Constitution.

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 108 S. Ct. 2250, 101 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1988); Dunham v. Wadley, 195

F.3d 1007, 1009 (8th Cir.1999). Mere negligence will not suffice to state a claim for deprivation

Case 5:06-cv-05114-JLH Document 17 Filed 01/26/07 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

of a constitutional right under § 1983. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 106 S. Ct. 662, 88 L.

Ed. 2d 662 (1986); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 106 S. Ct. 668, 88 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1986).

As noted above, Pugh was a pretrial detainee. “[W]hen 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.” County of Sacramento

v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 118 S. Ct. 1708, 1719, 140 L. Ed. 2d 1043 (1998)(citation omitted). In

Butler v. Fletcher, 465 F.3d 340, 344 (8th Cir. 2006), the Eighth Circuit held that deliberate

indifference is the “appropriate standard of culpability for all claims that prison officials failed

to provide pretrial detainees with adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care and reasonable

safety.” 

The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, but neither does it permit

inhumane ones. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811

(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, 101 S. Ct. 2392, 69 L. Ed.

2d 59 (1981). 

“A 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. Seiter,

501 U.S. 294, 298, 111 S. Ct. 2321, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271 (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

Case 5:06-cv-05114-JLH Document 17 Filed 01/26/07 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-5-

F.3d at 875 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Deliberate indifference is

established when the plaintiff shows “the defendant was substantially aware of but disregarded

an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Revels, 382 F.3d at 875.

The Supreme Court has stated that “[n]othing so amorphous as ‘overall conditions’ can

rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment when no specific deprivation of a single human

need exists.” Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 305, 111 S. Ct. 2321, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271 (1991).

However, “[c]onditions of confinement may establish an Eighth Amendment violation ‘in

combination’ when each would not do so alone, but only when they have a mutually enforcing

effect that produces the deprivation of a single, identifiable human need.” Gates v. Cook, 376

F.3d 323, 333 (5th Cir. 2004)(citing Wilson, 501 U.S. at 304). The standards against which a

court measures prison conditions are “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress

of a maturing society.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251

(1976). 

In this case, there is simply no basis on which Sheriff Helder can be held liable. Pugh

did not speak to, or communicate with, Sheriff Helder regarding his slip and fall. Resp. at ¶ 3(B).

Pugh does not contend a custom or policy of Sheriff Helder or Washington County in any way

caused his fall. Resp. at ¶ 3(D). 

Prior to his fall, Pugh had only made verbal complaints about his slippers and the

overflow of water into the common area. Resp. at ¶ 3(B). He had been told his slippers would

be replaced. Id. 

Pugh is not aware of any other inmate having fallen in the same area before he fell. Resp.

at ¶ 6. Pugh is not aware of any other inmates falling in the same area after his fall as a result

Case 5:06-cv-05114-JLH Document 17 Filed 01/26/07 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-6-

of the condition although he did see some inmates slip. Id. There is simply nothing to suggest

the Sheriff Helder failed to act in the face of a risk of harm to the health or safety of the detainees

at the WCDC. See e.g., LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1457 (9th Cir. 1993)(“slippery prison

floors . . . do not state even an arguable claim for cruel and unusual punishments”)(citation

omitted). 

“[E]very injury suffered by an inmate does not necessarily translate into constitutional

liability for prison officials.” Osolinski v. Kane, 92 F.3d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1996). While we do

not hold that slippery floors in combination with cracked or worn out shoes or slippers can never

establish a claim of constitutional dimension, we believe that under the circumstances of this

case no claim of constitutional dimension is stated. See e.g., Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124,

1129 (9th Cir. 1998)(inmate was on crutches and fell and injured himself several times--his

repeated injuries and unsafe conditions state a claim where slippery floors without protective

measures create sufficient danger). There is simply nothing to support a finding that Sheriff

Helder failed to maintain a safe area for the detainees or that he was aware there was a

substantial risk detainees would fall because of the overflow of water into the common area from

the showers and that a fall would cause serious harm. See e.g., Perkins v. Grimes, 161 F.3d

1127, 110 (8th Cir. 1998)(Plaintiff must prove the officials knew of facts from which they could

infer a substantial risk of serious harm existed and that the officials drew that inference). 

However, we believe plaintiff’s response to the motion to dismiss should be construed

as a motion to amend his complaint to assert a claim that he was denied adequate medical care

and to add Dr. Howard as a defendant. It is clear from Pugh’s response to the motion to dismiss

Case 5:06-cv-05114-JLH Document 17 Filed 01/26/07 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-7-

that he believes the slip and fall was merely an accident but does not believe that he received

adequate medical care after his injury in the fall.

CONCLUSION

I therefore recommend that defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc 10) Sheriff Helder be

granted. However, I recommend that the plaintiff’s response to the motion to dismiss (Doc. 15)

be construed to be a motion to amend the complaint to assert a denial of adequate medical care

claim and a request to add Dr. Howard as a defendant. 

The parties have ten days from receipt of the report and recommendation in which

to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely

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

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the

district court.

DATED this 26th day of January 2007.

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05114-JLH Document 17 Filed 01/26/07 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>