Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06361/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06361-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALONZO OWENS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 

CIV-F-04-6361 AWI DLB PC

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 10)

ORDER DISMISSING ENTIRE

COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE

TO AMEND

Plaintiff Alonzo Owens (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

72-302.

On February 14, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations

(“F&R”) which were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any

objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days. Doc. 10. To date, the parties have not filed

objections to the F&R.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305,

the court has conducted a de novo review of this case. The only defendant named in Plaintiffs

Case 1:04-cv-06361-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 04/27/05 Page 1 of 4
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

1The spelling of Defendant’s last name is uncertain as Plaintiff uses various alternative

spellings through his papers. 

2

Amended Complaint is Donald Burnett1 (“Defendant”), an instructor of a shop class that Plaintiff

was taking. Doc. 8. Plaintiff claims that Defendant violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights

by failing to provide adequate ventilation though he had been previously warned by Plaintiff of

the danger of injury from dust particles in the air. Doc. 8, Amended Complaint, at 2:4-8. 

“Inadequate ventilation and air flow violates the Eighth Amendment if it undermines the health

of inmates and the sanitation of the penitentiary.” Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1090 (9th Cir.

1996) (citations omitted). In order to establish an Eighth Amendment violation for deliberate

indifference, Plaintiff must show two things: the deprivation was sufficiently serious from a

objective point of view and prison officials must subjectively “know of and disregard an

excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 and 837 (1994). 

Neither requirement is met in this case.

With respect to Defendant’s state of knowledge, Plaintiff alleges that he personally

warned Defendant of the inadequacy of ventilation and Defendant failed to take any action. 

However, there is no indication that Defendant knew of the seriousness of the risk from the dust

and particles in the air. While Defendant knew of the existence of some risk to inmate health,

there is no indication that Defendant knew that the risk was excessive. In order to hold a prison

official liable, “the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference [of excessive

danger] could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the

inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).

With respect to the objective degree of risk to inmate health, Plaintiff alleges that dust

particles in the air were caught in his eye, causing continued blurred vision and watery eyes. Doc.

8, Amended Complaint, at 2:10-11. Plaintiff does not state what kind of dust caused his eye

irritation, but the court assumes that the particles were sawdust from the woodshop class. 

Whether such a danger constitutes a sufficiently serious risk of harm is doubtful. A review of

similar cases (prisoners alleging that Eighth Amendment violations due to exposure to dust or

Case 1:04-cv-06361-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 04/27/05 Page 2 of 4
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

other particulate matter) shows that courts have found Eighth Amendment violations when

prisoners were exposed to dust from inherently dangerous materials. In one case concerning a

prison work detail that was assigned to clean attics that contained asbestos, the Ninth Circuit

concluded that exposure to asbestos without any ventilation or protective gear is a sufficiently

serious danger of harm. Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1076 (9th Cir. 1995). However, the

simple fact that the work involved a considerable amount of “dust and debris” was not claimed to

be a serious health risk by the plaintiff in that case. Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1075 (9th

Cir. 1995). The Seventh Circuit recently found that the presence of fiberglass dust which caused

nosebleeds and respiratory problems in the absence of adequate ventilation constituted an

objectively serious health risk. Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 486 (7th Cir. 2005). In another

case, a prisoner successfully stated a claim where insufficient safety equipment was provided

when working with potentially carcinogenic materials in metal shop class. See Crawford v.

Coughlin, 43 F. Supp. 2d 319, 323 (W.D.N.Y. 1999). 

In contrast, the Third Circuit found that a prisoner’s allegation that “unidentified dust

particles were in his lungs and mucus, and that he is suffering from severe headaches, watery

eyes, and a change in his voice as a result” was sufficient to allow suit to proceed despite the fact

that the prisoner was subject to the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Gibbs v.

Cross, 160 F.3d 962, 965 (3rd Cir. 1998). The Third Circuit specifically distinguished the Eighth

Amendment’s much more stringent standard for deliberate indifference, noting that case law

suggested symptoms “such as headaches and nausea do not amount to a serious physical injury”

under that standard. Gibbs v. Cross, 160 F.3d 962, 966 (3rd Cir. 1998). “[H]eadaches, dust

mites, watery eyes” are not serious harms. Bean v. Washington, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14893

(N.D. Ill., 1999). Irritation of the eye due to sawdust does not rise to the level of an Eighth

Amendment violation. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and

Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 14, 2005, are ADOPTED IN

Case 1:04-cv-06361-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 04/27/05 Page 3 of 4
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

FULL; and,

2. The complaint is DISMISSED, without leave to amend, in its entirety for

Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06361-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 04/27/05 Page 4 of 4