Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00622/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00622-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donal Campbell
Defendant
Jerry Ferrell
Defendant
Roy Lee Miller
Plaintiff
Richard Montgomery
Defendant
Bob Riley
Defendant
Ken Smith
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROY LEE MILLER, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 04-00622-KD-B

BOB RILEY, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Roy Lee Miller, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding

pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant action alleging

violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is before the Court on

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. 26, 27, 35 and 54),

and has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2. Upon careful

review, the undersigned finds that this action is ripe for

resolution, and that no evidentiary hearing is necessary as the

record is fully developed. For the reasons stated below, the

undersigned recommends that Defendants’ motion be GRANTED.

I. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS

Miller is incarcerated at G.K. Fountain Correctional Facility

(“Fountain”)and is serving a life sentence as a result of his

convictions for robbery and murder. (Doc. 1). On September 27,

2004, Miller filed the instant lawsuit against Defendants Bob Riley

(Governor of the state of Alabama), Donal Campbell (Alabama Prison

Case 1:04-cv-00622-KD-B Document 26 Filed 08/23/07 Page 1 of 22
1

Miller’s lawsuit also includes a request that this action

proceed as a class action. The undersigned is treating Miller’s

request as a Motion for Class Certification. While Miller asserts

that this action meets the requirements of Rule 23(A), he acknowledges

that “the plaintiff, Roy Lee Miller, being incarcerated, lack

physical, mobility, such as the freedom, to move about within, or outside FCC. They do - not possess the legal knowledge required to

fairly and adequately represent the proposed, class, and they do-not

have access to various communication media, such as the internet,

telephones, or cellular phones, therefore the Court, will be asked to

appoint-counsel, to represent, Roy Lee Miller, and the entire proposed

class.” (Doc. 1 at 29). Miller’s request for class action

certification is DENIED. Wallace v. Smith, 145 Fed. Appx. 300, 2005

U.S. App. LEXIS 16101 (llth Cir. 2005) (“it is plain error to permit

an imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his

fellow inmates in a class action.”). In this action, Plaintiff

acknowledges that he is not a proper class representative as required

by Rule 23(A). Additionally, to date, Plaintiff has not filed a

request for appointment of counsel, has made no attempt to establish

that exceptional circumstances require the appointment of counsel in

this case and has not established that he is in fact an appropriate

class representative. See, Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193(11th Cir.

1993)(Prisoners raising civil rights claims, like other civil

litigants, have no constitutional right to counsel); Bass v. Perrin,

170 F.3d 1312, 1320 (llth Cir. 1999)(Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(1), a court has broad discretion to appoint counsel for an

indigent plaintiff in a civil case only if exceptional circumstances

exist. Moreover, the mere fact that a lawyer’s assistance would be

helpful does not amount to an “exceptional circumstance” where the

core facts of the case are pretty much undisputed and the legal claims

are straightforward.

2

Commissioner), Jerry Ferrell (Warden), Ken Smith (Deputy State

Fire Marshal), and Richard Montgomery (State Fire Marshal for the

state of Alabama). Miller alleges that living conditions at

Fountain violate his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.1 Miller

contends that Fountain and its facilities are dilapidated,

overcrowded, and unsafe for both inmates and correctional

officials. According to Miller, Fountain’s physical plant is

Case 1:04-cv-00622-KD-B Document 26 Filed 08/23/07 Page 2 of 22
3

filthy and is infested with vermin. Miller also asserts that

insects enter through the many broken, unscreened windows of the

dormitories. Miller alleges that paint chips fall from the walls

and ceilings of the prison, and that the entire facility is in need

of cleaning. Miller also indicates that Fountain’s showers and

toilets are often inoperable, and that the restroom facilities are

generally unsanitary. 

Miller contends that Fountain is overcrowded, housing over

1200 inmates despite a design capacity of 632. Miller claims that

overcrowding at Fountain contributes to a lack of personal space

for inmates, resulting in increased violence among the inmate

population. Miller states that “living space per inmate” does not

meet minimum standards, and that inmate bunks are situated so close

together as to prevent movement around bunk areas, and create

obstructions behind which assaults, drug use, and other illegal

activities occur. Miller contends that the close proximity in

which inmates are confined contributes to a heightened risk of

transmission of communicable diseases. Miller also complains that

conditions at Fountain are unsanitary, as sewage overflows are

common, and inmates are often forced to shower in standing water.

In addition, Miller contends that Fountain’s food service areas,

and the meals served to inmates, are filthy, and that inmates work

without supervision in Fountain’s food preparation areas. Miller

also complains that Fountain’s drinking water is contaminated and

Case 1:04-cv-00622-KD-B Document 26 Filed 08/23/07 Page 3 of 22
4

unfit to drink. 

Miller also alleges that Fountain’s fire safety program is

deficient. According to Miller, Fountain’s dormitories lack smoke

detectors, sprinkler systems, fire extinguishers, and smoke exhaust

fans. In addition, Miller alleges that Fountain’s fire evacuation

plan is inadequate because locks at Fountain must be unlocked

manually using keys. Miller submits that Fountain’s manual locks

are a threat to inmate safety as they would slow any fire

evacuation. Miller also claims that while Fountain’s current fire

evacuation plan estimates that the facility can be evacuated within

15 to 25 minutes in the event of fire, the plan does not take into

account Fountain’s overcrowded conditions and staffing shortages.

Miller submits that because of overcrowding and staffing shortages,

any evacuation due to fire would take longer than the time

estimated, increasing the risk of smoke inhalation deaths among

Fountain’s inmates. Miller also contends that Fountain’s written

evacuation plan is deficient because it fails to explicitly

instruct inmates as to what they should do in case of fire. 

Miller also alleges that Fountain’s ventilation system fails to

provide adequate airflow within inmate dormitories. According to

Miller, a metal roof built over Fountain’s original roof

contributes to the lack of airflow in the prison, resulting in

excessive odors, heat and humidity, and mold growth.

Miller also contends that Fountain provides inadequate health

Case 1:04-cv-00622-KD-B Document 26 Filed 08/23/07 Page 4 of 22
2 Plaintiff states he is suing defendants in their official and

individual capacities (Doc. 1, at 25). As state officials, Defendants are

absolutely immune from suit for damages in their official capacities. See

5

services to inmates. Miller states that Fountain provides only a

single doctor for the 1200 inmates incarcerated at Fountain, and

that although the staff physician schedules approximately 50

appointments per day each week, the doctor’s additional duties to

other prison camps and his private medical practice render him

unable to provide the level of medical care required by Fountain’s

inmate population. Miller also complains that there is a shortage

of nurses at Fountain, and that inmates are subject to delays in

receiving diagnoses and medications, even when suffering with

ailments. According to Miller, delays in inmate medical treatment

extend to dental care, as Fountain does not provide adequate dental

care staffing to meet the needs of Fountain’s inmate population.

Miller further contends that Fountain’s law library is

constitutionally inadequate because it does not contain either the

Federal Supplements or the Federal Reporter series. Miller also

claims that the library does not provide adequate space to study or

write, and provides seating for only twelve inmates at any given

time. 

Defendants Riley, Donal, Ferrell, Montgomery and Smith filed

Answers and Special Reports wherein they deny Plaintiff’s

allegations and assert the defenses of absolute and qualified

immunity.2 (Docs. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21). Defendant Ferrell

Case 1:04-cv-00622-KD-B Document 26 Filed 08/23/07 Page 5 of 22
Harbert Int’l, Inc. v. James, 157 F.3d 1271, 1277 (11th Cir. 1998) (state

officials sued in their official capacities are protected from suit for

damages under the Eleventh Amendment). Moreover, “[q]ualified immunity

protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in

their individual capacities unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established

statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

known.’” Dalrymple v. Reno, 334 F.3d 991, 994 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting Hope

v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002)). In determining whether qualified

immunity is appropriate in a given case, “[t]he court must first ask the

threshold question whether the facts alleged, taken in the light most

favorable to the Plaintiffs, show that the government official’s conduct

violated a constitutional right.” Dalrymple, 334 F.3d at 995 (citing Saucier

v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001)). Having found herein that Plaintiff’s

allegations do not establish a constitutional violation, “there is no

necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier, 533

U.S. at 201. 

6

also submitted a sworn affidavit. (Doc. 13, Ex. 1). On June 26,

2007, Defendants’ Special Reports and Answers were converted into

a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 25). Plaintiff was given

notice of the conversion, and of his right to a response.

Furthermore, Plaintiff was advised of the requirements of

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 and of the ramifications of a motion for summary

judgment. (Doc. 25). As of the date of this Report and

Recommendation, Plaintiff has filed no response. 

II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides that summary

judgment shall be granted:

if the pleadings, depositions, answers to 

interrogatories and admissions on file, together

with the affidavits, if any, show that there is

no genuine issue as to any material fact and that

the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law. 

Fed.R.Civ.P.56(c). A factual dispute is “genuine” if the evidence

Case 1:04-cv-00622-KD-B Document 26 Filed 08/23/07 Page 6 of 22
3 In this case, Miller did not respond after Defendants’ Answers

and Special Reports were converted into a motion for summary judgment. 

Thus, the only material submitted by Miller that is competent evidence

to support his claims is his complaint, which was signed under penalty

of perjury. Because it was signed under penalty of perjury, it is

being treated by the Court as an affidavit. Dickinson v. Wainwright,

626 F.2d 1184, 1186 (5th Cir. 1980). 

7

is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the

nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,

248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). A fact is

“material” if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the

governing [substantive] law.” Id.; accord, Tipton v. Bergrohr GMBHSiegen, 965 F. 2d 994, 998 (llth Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S.

911, 113 S.Ct. 1259, 122 L. Ed. 2d 657 (1993). The party seeking

summary judgment must first identify grounds that show the absence

of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. V. Catrett, 477

U.S. 317, 323-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed. 2d 265 (1986). Once the

movant satisfies its initial burden under Rule 56( c), the

plaintiff is required to produce some evidence to support his

constitutional claims. He must “go beyond the pleadings

and...designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine

issue for trial.’” Id. at 324. A plaintiff’s mere verification of

conclusory allegations is not sufficient to oppose a motion for

summary judgment3

. Harris v. Ostrout, 65 F. 3d 912, 916 (llth Cir.

1995). Consequently, when a party “fails to make a showing

sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to

that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of

Case 1:04-cv-00622-KD-B Document 26 Filed 08/23/07 Page 7 of 22
4

The Prison Litigation Reform Act ( The “PLRA”) requires

exhaustion of available administrative remedies before a prisoner can

seek relief in federal court on a § 1983 complaint. 42 U.S.C. §

1997e(a); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 n.6, 121 S. Ct. 1819,

149 L. Ed. 2d 958 (2001). In this action, Defendants have not

asserted, let alone established, that administrative remedies were

available to Miller, and that he failed to exhaust such remedies.

8

proof at trial” summary judgment is due to be granted in favor of

the moving party. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. Where all the

materials before the court indicate that there is no genuine issue

of material fact and that the party moving for summary judgment is

entitled to it as a matter of law, summary judgment is proper. 

Id.; Everett v. Napper, 833 F.2d 1507, 1510 (llth Cir. 1987). 

Although factual inferences must be viewed in the light most

favorable to the non-moving party, and pro se complaints are

entitled to liberal interpretation by the courts, a pro se litigant

does not escape the essential burden under summary judgment

standards of establishing that there is a genuine issue as to a

material fact in order to avert summary judgment. Brown v.

Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 670 (llth Cir. 1990). The record in this

case demonstrates that Miller has failed to establish that there is

any genuine issue as to any material facts sufficient to avert

judgment in favor of Defendants.

B. CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CLAIMS

In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 19834

, a plaintiff

must establish that “(1)..the conduct complained of was committed

by a person acting under color of state law; and (2)...this conduct

Case 1:04-cv-00622-KD-B Document 26 Filed 08/23/07 Page 8 of 22
5

The Eighth Amendment applies to the states through the

Fourteenth Amendment. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 344-45, 101

S.Ct. 2392, 2398, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981).

6

A valid Eighth Amendment claim of this kind has two components:

(1) an “objective component,” a prisoner must prove that the condition

he complains of is sufficiently serious to violate the Eighth

Amendment, Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8, 112 S.Ct. 995, 999, 117

L.Ed.2d 156 (1992), and (2) a subjective component which requires the

inmate to prove that the prison official was“deliberately indifferent”

to prisoner health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 837. 

9

deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by

the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Parratt v. Taylor,

451 U.S. 527, 535, 101 S. Ct. 1908, 1913, 68 L. Ed. 2d 420 (1981),

overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327,

330-31, 106 S. Ct. 662, 664, 88 L. Ed. 2d 662 (1986). 

As noted supra, Miller alleges that living conditions at

Fountain violate his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments5 to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The

Eighth Amendment does not require that places of incarceration be

comfortable. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349, 101 S. Ct. 2392,

69 L. Ed. 2d 59 (1981). However, it does not tolerate inhumane

ones. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 128 L.

Ed. 2d 811 (1994). A prison official may violate the Eighth

Amendment by denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement if

he is deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious

harm.6

 Id. at 837. This requires proof that the prison official

“knew that the inmate faced a substantial risk of serious harm and

disregarded that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to

abate it.” Id. at 847. In order for a condition of confinement to

Case 1:04-cv-00622-KD-B Document 26 Filed 08/23/07 Page 9 of 22
10

violate the Eighth Amendment, the condition must be “extreme”.

Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278, 1289 (llth Cir. 2004).

While an inmate “need not await a tragic event” before seeking

relief, he must at the very least show that the complained-ofcondition “poses an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his

future health or safety.” Id. Moreover, “the Eighth Amendment

requires more than a scientific and statistical inquiry into the

seriousness of the potential harm and the likelihood that such

injury to health will actually be caused by exposure to the

challenged condition of confinement.” Id. It also requires courts

to assess “whether society considers the risk that the prisoner

complains to be so grave that it violates contemporary standards of

decency to expose anyone unwillingly to such a risk.” Id. Put

differently, the prisoner must “show that the risk of which he

complains is not one that today’s society chooses to tolerate.” Id.

As a preliminary matter, the undersigned notes that with

respect to Governor Riley, Commissioner Campbell, Alabama State

Fire Chief Richard Montgomery and Deputy Fire Marshal Ken Smith,

Miller has failed to provide facts which ties them to any of the

alleged constitutional violations. To the extent Miller seeks to

impose liability upon these Defendants under the theory of

respondent superior or on the basis of vicarious liability, his

claims are unavailing. “Neither respondent superior nor vicarious

liability exists under § 1983.” Cook v. Sheriff of Monroe County,

402 F. 3d 1092, 1116 (llth Cir. 2005); Monell v. Dep’t of Social

Case 1:04-cv-00622-KD-B Document 26 Filed 08/23/07 Page 10 of 22
7

The Eighth Amendment applies to the states through the

Fourteenth Amendment. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 344-45, 101

S.Ct. 2392, 2398, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981).

11

Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 690-92 (1978); Harris v. Ostrout, 65 F. 3d

912, 917 (llth Cir. 1995); Belcher v. City of Foley, 30 F. 3d 1390,

1396 (llth Cir. 1994); LaMarca v. Turner, 995 F. 2d 1526, 1538

(llth Cir. 1983). Consequently, Defendants Riley, Campbell,

Montgomery and Smith are entitled to summary judgment on

Plaintiff’s claims against them. 

As noted supra, Miller alleges that living conditions at

Fountain violate his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments7 to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Miller

complains that Fountain is overcrowded and understaffed, and that

these problems in turn result in increased violence and contributes

to a heightened risk of transmission of communicable diseases.

Plaintiff has proffered no probative evidence in support of his

claims. Defendants, on the other hand, have not only disputed

Plaintiff’s claims, but have offered evidence in support. The

sworn affidavit of Jerry Ferrell, who serves as warden of the

facility, acknowledges that the facility, which was constructed in

1955 is overcrowded and in need of some repairs, but denies that

the inmates are living in inhumane conditions. (Doc. 13, Ex. 1)

Ferrell avers that while there are some 1213 inmates housed in a

facility designed for 755, all of the inmates are assigned a bed

with a mattress and liners and that none of the inmates sleep on

Case 1:04-cv-00622-KD-B Document 26 Filed 08/23/07 Page 11 of 22
12

the floor. Ferrell also avers that the inmates are housed in four

dormitories, with approximately 190 inmates assigned to each dorm.

(Id. at 2). According to Ferrell, dorm 1 has 8 toilets, 2 urinals,

15 lavatories, 6 showerheads and one large sink, dorm 2 has dorm 8

toilets, 6 urinals, 15 lavatories, 6 showerheads and one large

sink, dorm 3 has 8 toilets, 6 urinals, 15 lavatories and 6

showerheads and dorm 4 has 8 toilets, 6 urinals, 15 lavatories 6

showerheads one large sink. Ferrell avers that inmates have

unlimited access to the toilets, latrines and lavatories, and that

the shower schedule runs from 12:00 pm to 10:30 p.m. so that each

inmate is able to meet his basic needs. (Id.)

Ferrell further asserts that the dorms and restrooms are

cleaned daily, that inmates are allowed to exchange shirts and

pants daily, and that the inmates’ personal laundry and bed liners

are washed and dried each week. (Id. At 6). Additionally, Ferrell

avers that the facility has a contract with the Baldwin Pest

Control of Atmore for monthly treatment for pests and rodents, and

that the replacement of window panes at the facility occurs on an

ongoing basis with approximately 1000 window panes being replaced

annually. (Id. at 6). With respect to the kitchen area, Ferrell

avers that Fountain’s food service operation meets all state

standards and requirements for preparation, storage and disposal of

food, as well as sanitation of kitchen instruments. He further

asserts that Fountain’s water is provided by the city of Atmore and

Case 1:04-cv-00622-KD-B Document 26 Filed 08/23/07 Page 12 of 22
13

meets the quality standards required of any municipal water supply.

In his affidavit, Ferrell references inspection reports

completed by the Alabama Department of Public Health Inspection

during 2004 and 2005, and attached to his affidavit. (Id. at 6).

The Reports relate to inspections that were conducted of the

kitchen and living areas of the facility. The March 29, 2004,

report reflects that in 2004, the kitchen area received a score of

92, while the general prison facility area received a score of 90.

On the report, it is noted that there should be one shower and sink

per every 12 inmates, that some of the window panes in dorm 2 were

missing, and that there was flaking paint on the ceiling. With

respect to the kitchen, it was noted that “the seal on the walk-in

freezer door needs to be replaced. The wall at the walk-in freezer

is in need of repair. There was a jacket bakery area. There was a

spray bottle of disinfectant that was not labeled. All toxic items

must be labeled.” (Id.). 

The May 2, 2005, report reflects that in the housing

inspection, it was noted that there should be one shower and sink

per every 12 inmates and that some of the broken windows in the

hall and dorms needed to be repaired, and that the outer openings

needed to be protected. The kitchen area received a rating of 91,

and the following comments were made: “Storage of scoop in storage

area with beans, rice, flour, etc. Make sure fan guard in

dishwashing area needs cleaning. Rat in bakery shop. Ceiling in

Case 1:04-cv-00622-KD-B Document 26 Filed 08/23/07 Page 13 of 22
14

dishwashing area above fan needed cleaning. Light shield needed in

WI freezer”. (Id.). While the above evidence reflects that there

are areas for improvement at the facility, none of the reports

suggest that the showers and toilets were not in proper working

order, or that the living conditions were unsanitary or inhumane.

Miller has not disputed any of the factual information provided by

Defendant nor has he offered anything, other than his conclusory

assertions, in support of his allegations regarding the living

areas and kitchen facilities. Accordingly, the undersigned finds,

based on the record before the Court, that Plaintiff has failed to

establish that the living conditions at the facility are inhumane,

let alone that Defendants have exhibited deliberate indifference to

the conditions at Fountain. 

Plaintiff also asserts that Fountain’s ventilation system

fails to provide adequate airflow within the inmate dormitories,

and that Fountain’s fire safety program is deficient. According to

Miller, Fountain’s dormitories lack smoke detectors, sprinkler

systems, fire extinguishers, and smoke exhaust fans, that the cells

must be unlocked using manual keys, and that while there is a

evacuation plan in place, it is insufficient because it does not

take into account that the facility is overcrowded, and it does not

explicitly instruct inmates as to what they should do in case of

fire. 

In his affidavit, Ferrell asserts that smoking is banned in

all of Fountain’s buildings, and that each main dormitory has four

Case 1:04-cv-00622-KD-B Document 26 Filed 08/23/07 Page 14 of 22
15

or more exhaust fans in addition to two or more large floor fans,

which are strategically located to augment airflow. According to

Defendant, the exhaust system provides adequate ventilation for the

inmate population at Fountain. Ferrell further asserts that an

adequate fire safety plan exists at Fountain. 

Ferrell states that the facility has a fire safety and

evacuation plan, and that pursuant to the plan, fire drills are

conducted a minimum of once each quarter, and often, on a monthly

basis. He also states that, “Fire extinguishers are strategically

located throughout the facility. Fire evacuation routes are posted

and fire evacuation exit doors are panted red. Correctional

officers are assigned to patrol living areas. Each officer is

assigned a hand-held radio. The facility has an intercom system

that is used to alert staff and inmates of fire drills and

emergencies that may occur.” (Doc. 13, Ex. 1 at 2). 

Ferrell also attached to his affidavit a copy of Fountain’s

Fire Safety and evacuation Plan. The Plan calls for fire

inspections and testing at least once quarter. The Plan also

provides specific procedures regarding fire prevention and

evacuation procedures. Miller has not disputed any of the

assertions contained in Ferrell’s affidavit, or presented evidence

that indicates that smoke detectors and sprinklers are required in

the facility. Moreover, he has not offered any probative evidence

that suggests that Fountain’s fire and safety Plan is inadequate

and exposes inmates to a substantial risk of harm, or that

Case 1:04-cv-00622-KD-B Document 26 Filed 08/23/07 Page 15 of 22
16

Defendants have exhibited deliberate indifference or reckless

disregard with respect to fire safety at the facility.

Accordingly, based on the record before the Court, the undersigned

finds that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect

to this claim.

With respect to Miller’s assertion that because the facility

is overcrowded and understaffed, there is increased violence among

the inmate population, Ferrell denies that inmates are subjected to

increased violence. Ferrell asserts that while the facility is

understaffed, they are constantly recruiting employees and that

they allow staff to work overtime in order to ensure that they have

the proper number of officers to secure the facility. Ferrell

further avers that officers are assigned to the main living areas

each shift, and that they are required to randomly search a minimum

number of inmates during their assigned shifts, as well as search

the common areas in the dormitories. Additionally, Ferrell avers

that all inmates returning to and from the facility from vocational

areas must pass through a metal detector, and that all other

inmates are stripped-searched as they return to the facility.

(Doc. 13, Ex. 1 at 4.). 

Ferrell states that for the period January 2005, through

August 2005, which is the period immediately prior to the execution

of his affidavit, that there had been 3 incidents involving the use

of a weapon: one incident involving scissors, one incident

involving a wooden walking cane, and one incident involving an

Case 1:04-cv-00622-KD-B Document 26 Filed 08/23/07 Page 16 of 22
17

alleged weapon which was never recovered. He further asserts that

the inmates involved in the incidents sustained minor injuries.

Here again, Miller has not disputed any of the assertions contained

in Ferrell’s affidavit, nor has he offered any probative evidence

that suggests that inmates are in fact subjected to widespread

violence at the facility, or that Defendants have exhibited

deliberate indifference or reckless disregard with respect to the

safety of inmates at the facility. Accordingly, based on the

record before the Court, the undersigned finds that Defendants are

entitled to summary judgment with respect to this claim.

As noted previously, Miller contends that Fountain provides

inadequate health services to inmates. According to Miller, the

facility has a single doctor for over 1200 inmates, and a shortage

of nurses, which results in delays in the delivery of medical

services to the inmates. In his affidavit, Ferrell states that

Fountain provides health care services to inmates through a

contractual arrangement with Prison Health Services. Ferrell

further states that the contractor currently provides one (1)

medical doctor for forty (40) hours per week, one (1) Nurse

Practitioner for thirty-two (32) hours per week, two (2) full time

Registered Nurses and one(1) part time Registered Nurse, eleven

(11) full-time Licensed Practical Nurses and four (4) part-time

Licensed Nurses, one (1) full-time dentist, one (1) dental

assistant for forty (40) hours per week, one (1) dental hygienist,

one (1) medical records clerks, two (2) secretaries, and one (1)

Case 1:04-cv-00622-KD-B Document 26 Filed 08/23/07 Page 17 of 22
18

Registered Nurse who serves as the Health Service Administrator.

(Doc. 13, Ex. 1 at 3). 

Miller has not disputed any of the assertions contained in

Ferrell’s affidavit, nor has he offered any probative evidence that

suggests that the medical personnel provided at the facility is not

sufficient or that the assigned medical personnel is not rendering

adequate medical care. The bottom line is that Miller’s

conclusory allegations fail to create a genuine issue of disputed

fact with respect to the quality of medical care being provided at

the facility. Moreover, there is absolutely nothing in the record

to suggest that Defendants have exhibited deliberate indifference

or reckless disregard with respect to the delivery of medical

services to the inmates at the facility. Accordingly, based on the

record before the Court, the undersigned finds that Defendants are

entitled to summary judgment with respect to this claim.

Finally, Miller alleges that Fountain’s law library is

inadequate because it lacks copies of the Federal Reporter and

Federal Supplement series, and has space for only a limited number

of inmates at any given time. To guarantee prisoners their

constitutional right of access to the courts, prison authorities

are required to provide prisoners with adequate law libraries or

legally trained assistance to prepare and file meaningful legal

papers. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 1498, 52

L.Ed.2d 72 (1977). The primary focus is to “protect the ability of

an inmate to prepare a petition or complaint, [and] it is

Case 1:04-cv-00622-KD-B Document 26 Filed 08/23/07 Page 18 of 22
19

irrelevant” that the state provides for the appointment of counsel

in some proceedings. Id. at 828 n. 17, 97 S.Ct. at 1498 n. 17

(internal quotations and citation omitted). The required prison law

library must supply the tools and, thus, “a capability” “that the

inmates need in order to attack their sentences, directly or

collaterally, and in order to challenge the conditions of their

confinement.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 355-56, 116 S.Ct. 2174,

2182, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). An inmate who shows that a desired

actionable challenge to his sentence was “lost or rejected ...

because th[e] capability of filing suit [w]as not ... provided, ...

demonstrates that the State has failed to furnish adequate law

libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.”

Id., 116 S.Ct. at 2182 (internal punctuation and citation omitted).

 Miller alleges only that his ability to engage in “meaningful

legal research” has been limited by the allegedly small size and

inadequate supply of books in the Fountain’s law library, not that

he has lost the ability to file suit to vindicate his rights

because of library and included multiple citations to legal

authority. Further, the record reflects that inmates at Fountain

are allowed access to the law library for 20 hours each week, and

that the facility has purchased and maintained books, including

reference resource materials, within the confines of the budget

which they have been provided. (Id.) Additionally, the facility is

in the process of replacing legal texts with computer based

research systems. In light of the record before the Court,

Case 1:04-cv-00622-KD-B Document 26 Filed 08/23/07 Page 19 of 22
20

Miller’s conclusory allegations are not sufficient to defeat

summary judgment on this claim.

Despite his contentions regarding his conditions of

confinement at Fountain, Miller has failed to establish that these

conditions deny him the minimal civilized measure of life's

necessities or subjects him to a wanton and unnecessary infliction

of pain. Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298-299; Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347.

Furthermore, Miller has failed to demonstrate any deliberate

indifference or reckless disregard by the named defendants with

respect to his health or safety. Specifically, Miller has failed

to identify any particular incident or condition from which the

defendants could infer that a substantial risk of serious harm

existed. Consequently, summary judgment is due to be granted in

favor of the Defendants on these claims. See McElligott v. Foley,

182 F.3d 1248, 1255 (11th Cir.1999).

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Defendants

are entitled to summary judgment in their favor on all claims

asserted against them by Miller. Accordingly, it is recommended

that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED, and that

Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice.

DONE this 21st day of August 2007.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00622-KD-B Document 26 Filed 08/23/07 Page 20 of 22
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of this

document, file specific written objections with the clerk of court.

Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the district

judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an attack, on

appeal, of the factual findings of the magistrate judge. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir.

1988). The procedure for challenging the findings and

recommendations of the magistrate judge is set out in more detail

in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides, in part, that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing a

“Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten days after being served with

a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time is

established by order. The statement of objection shall

specify those portions of the recommendation to which

objection is made and the basis for the objection. The

objecting party shall submit to the district judge, at

the time of filing the objection, a brief setting forth

the party’s arguments that the magistrate judge’s

recommendation should be reviewed de novo and a different

disposition made. It is insufficient to submit only a

copy of the original brief submitted to the magistrate

judge, although a copy of the original brief may be

submitted or referred to and incorporated into the brief

in support of the objection. Failure to submit a brief

in support of the objection may be deemed an abandonment

of the objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a

Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can

be appealed.

2. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing

party may submit a brief opposing the objection within ten (10)

days of being served with a copy of the statement of objection.

Case 1:04-cv-00622-KD-B Document 26 Filed 08/23/07 Page 21 of 22
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

3. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the magistrate

judge finds that the tapes and original records in this action are

adequate for purposes of review. Any party planning to object to

this recommendation, but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is

advised that a judicial determination that transcription is

necessary is required before the United States will pay the cost of

the transcript.

Case 1:04-cv-00622-KD-B Document 26 Filed 08/23/07 Page 22 of 22