Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03829/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03829-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

MARCELLUS COOKSEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL HENNESSEY (Sheriff); 

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-3829 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

INTRODUCTION

Marcellus Cooksey, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail, filed this pro se civil

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the court for review

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A. 

BACKGROUND

In his complaint, Cooksey alleges that he has been required to endure an infrequentlyflushing toilet in his jail cell which he shares with one other inmate. Jail personnel

apparently restricted the number of times inmates could flush toilets to two flushes every 15-

20 minutes due to plumbing damage and water wasted by excessive flushing by inmates. As

a result of the limited flushing, inmates had to use a dirty toilet which, Cooksey alleged,

splashed over when the inmate used it. He alleges that it was unsanitary. 

In about June 2007, and lasting for about a week, Cooksey was in a cell in which the

water was limited, although it is not clear whether he is referring to less water in each flush

of the toilet or another water source in the cell. He alleges that he couldn't wash his hands

Case 3:07-cv-03829-MHP Document 5 Filed 09/20/07 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

properly after using the toilet and had to ask for extra water to drink. He filed a grievance. 

Jail staff responded to the grievance by moving Cooksey to another cell and contacting the

plumber. 

 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).

"No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison or

other correctional facility for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a

prior showing of physical injury." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). Failure to allege and establish an

appropriate physical injury is ground for dismissal, see Zehner v. Trigg, 952 F. Supp. 1318,

1321-35 (S.D. Ind.) (dismissing action for damages because no plaintiff developed physical

injury by exposure to asbestos while in prison), aff'd, 133 F.3d 459 (7th Cir. 1997). Physical

symptoms that are not sufficiently distinct from a plaintiff's allegations of emotional distress

do not qualify as "a prior showing of physical injury." See Davis v. District of Columbia,

158 F.3d 1342, 1349 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ("somatic manifestations of emotional distress" such as

weight loss, appetite loss and insomnia, cannot establish physical injury under § 1997e(e)). 

Cooksey's allegations do not show a qualifying physical injury. His damages claim thus is

barred under § 1997e(e).

In addition to the § 1997e(e) problem, the complaint fails to state a claim for a

Case 3:07-cv-03829-MHP Document 5 Filed 09/20/07 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

constitutional violation. When a pretrial detainee challenges conditions of his confinement,

the claim is analyzed under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment rather than

under Eighth Amendment, although the Eighth Amendment serves as a benchmark for

evaluating those claims. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979); Carnell v.

Grimm, 74 F.3d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1996) (8th Amendment guarantees provide minimum

standard of care for pretrial detainees). 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 complaint's allegation that Cooksey was housed in cells where toilets were on

timed flushes, with flushing occurring not more than twice every 15-20 minutes, does not

state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Although limits on toilet flushing might at

some point rise to the level of a due process violation, the limits here were hours below that

level. The complaint's allegation that Cooksey spent up to a week in a cell in which the toilet

Case 3:07-cv-03829-MHP Document 5 Filed 09/20/07 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

was on a timed flush and the water flow restricted also does not state a claim under the

Fourteenth Amendment. As soon as he complained, staff contacted the plumber and moved

Cooksey to a new cell. The allegations of the complaint on this point do not suggest any

harm or even a serious risk to his health, but instead a short-term inconvenience. 

CONCLUSION

This action is dismissed because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted. The damages claim is dismissed for the additional reason that no physical

injury was suffered by the prisoner-plaintiff. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2007 ______________________

 Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03829-MHP Document 5 Filed 09/20/07 Page 4 of 4