Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00690/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00690-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keith Bowers
Defendant
Marty Boyde
Defendant
Akeem Edward Cortez Horner
Plaintiff

Document Text:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

CENTRAL DIVISION

AKEEM EDWARD CORTEZ HORNER PLAINTIFF 

ADC #153909 

V. No. 4:19CV00690-LPR-JTR 

KEITH BOWERS, Administrator, 

Craighead County Sheriff’s Department; 

and MARTY BOYDE, Sheriff, 

Craighead County DEFENDANTS 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

 The following Recommended Disposition has been sent to United States 

District Judge Lee P. Rudofsky. You may file written objections to all or part of this 

Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the 

factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this 

Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Recommendation. If you do not 

file objections, Judge Rudofsky may adopt this Recommendation without 

independently reviewing all of the evidence in the record. By not objecting, you may 

waive the right to appeal questions of fact. 

I. Introduction 

 On October 1, 2019, Plaintiff Akeem Edward Cortez Horner (“Horner”) 

initiated this action by filing a pro se § 1983 Complaint alleging that, while he was 

Case 4:19-cv-00690-LPR Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 1 of 12
2 

a pretrial detainee in the Craighead County Detention Center (“CCDC”), he was 

subjected to inhumane conditions of confinement in violation of his rights under the 

Fourteenth Amendment.1 Doc. 2. At the direction of the Court, he later filed an 

Amended Complaint clarifying his constitutional claims. Doc. 6.2

 

Before Horner can proceed with this action, the Prison Litigation Reform Act 

(“PLRA”) requires the Court to screen his pleadings, and dismiss any claims that: 

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

be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) & (b). To survive the screening process, a “complaint 

must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that 

is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). When making 

 1

In his Complaint, Horner identified himself as a pretrial detainee. Doc. 2 at 3. In his 

Amended Complaint, he marked the box on the § 1983 form as “serving a sentence as a result of 

a judgment of conviction.” Doc. 6 at 3. Because a pretrial detainee’s burden of demonstrating a 

Fourteenth Amendment violation is “lighter” than what a convicted prisoner must prove to 

establish an Eighth Amendment violation, the Court has given Horner the benefit of the doubt by 

evaluating his claims under the more favorable Fourteenth Amendment due process standard. 

Morris v. Zefferi, 601 F.3d 805, 809 (8th Cir. 2010); see also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 

n.16 (1979) (explaining that “[d]ue process requires that a pretrial detainee not be punished,” while 

an inmate who has been convicted and sentenced “may be punished, although that punishment 

may not be ‘cruel and unusual’ under the Eighth Amendment”). 

2

The Court ordered Horner to file an Amended Complaint to cure pleading deficiencies in 

his Complaint. Doc. 4. The Court has read his pro se Complaint and Amended Complaint, together, 

as constituting his claims. See Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 849 (8th 

Cir. 2014) (pro se complaint must be “liberally construed” and “pro se litigants are held to a lesser 

pleading standard than other parties”); Kiir v. N.D. Pub. Health, 651 F. App’x 567, 568 (8th Cir. 

2016) (amendment “intended to supplement, rather than to supplant, the original complaint,” 

should be read together with original complaint). 

Case 4:19-cv-00690-LPR Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 2 of 12
3 

this determination, the Court must accept as true the allegations contained in the 

pleadings. Id.

II. Discussion

 Horner’s inhumane conditions of confinement claims are based on the 

following allegations: (1) his food was prepared and served by inmates and guards 

who did not wear proper gloves, did not wear hairnets, did not wear clean clothing, 

had not been tested for diseases, did not cover the food trays, and served food that 

did not meet state requirements for “nutrition amounts” and contained foreign 

“articles”; (2) he was denied all outside exercise; (3) the CCDC was in a “constant 

state of disrepair,” with leaky plumbing, unsanitary water faucets that had to be used 

for drinking by some detainees, black fungus and mold in the showers, and 

“deteriorating commodes”; (4) mattresses were not cleaned between uses by 

detainees, no “lice prevention spray” was used on detainees at intake, and detainees 

shared nail clippers and razors; (5) detainees were charged $2.50 to $3.00 for 

“indigent packs” and nail clippers; and (6) the air conditioning was broken. Doc. 2 

at 4-8; Doc. 6 at 4. 

 Horner alleges that Defendants Jail Administrator Keith Bowers (“Bowers”) 

and Sheriff Marty Boyde (“Boyde”) knew about the CCDC conditions and were 

responsible for providing a clean, safe environment for him and other detainees.

Doc. 2 at 5-6. 

Case 4:19-cv-00690-LPR Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 3 of 12
4 

 Horton contends that the conditions of confinement in the CCDC caused him 

to “fear for [his] safety every day.” Id. at 5. In his prayer for relief, he seeks $250,000 

in compensatory damages, along with an injunction to prevent Defendants from 

retaliating against him. Id. at 8; Doc. 6 at 5. 

 Finally, in his Amended Complaint, filed on November 19, 2019, Horner 

states that he had been in the CCDC for “three months.”3 Doc. 6 at 4. Accepting this 

statement as true, this means that: (1) Horner was booked into the CCDC in midAugust 2019; and (2) the conditions of confinement described in his pleadings lasted 

for three months or less. On January 21, 2020, Horner advised the Court that, on an 

unspecified date, he was transferred from the CCDC to the Northeast Arkansas 

Community Correction Center. Doc. 7.

A. Horner’s Request for Injunctive Relief

Because Horner is no longer incarcerated in the CCDC, he lacks standing to 

seek injunctive relief and this claim, as a matter of law, is now moot. Zajrael v. 

Harmon, 677 F.3d 353, 355 (8th Cir. 2012) (holding that a prisoner’s request for 

injunctive relief is rendered moot when he is transferred to another facility and is no 

longer subject to the allegedly unconstitutional conditions). 

 3

In the Order directing Horner to file an Amended Complaint, the Court explicitly 

instructed him to state “the specific dates that he was subjected to the allegedly unconstitutional 

conditions of confinement” in the CCDC. Doc. 4 at 2. 

Case 4:19-cv-00690-LPR Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 4 of 12
5 

B. Horner’s Request for Compensatory Damages Based On the 

 Alleged Inhumane Conditions of Confinement 

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects pretrial 

detainees from any conditions of confinement amounting to “punishment.” Bell v 

Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). Whether conditions of confinement constitute 

punishment must be determined based on the totality of the circumstances created 

by the conditions and the duration of exposure to those conditions. Stearns v. Inmate 

Services Corp., 957 F.3d 902, 909 (8th Cir. 2020); Owens v. Scott County Jail, 328 

F.3d 1026, 1027 (8th Cir. 2003); Smith v. Copeland, 87 F.3d 265, 268-69 (8th Cir. 

1996); Green v. Baron, 879 F.2d 305, 309 (8th Cir. 1989). 

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, punishment that “deprive[s] inmates of the 

minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities” is unconstitutional. Owens, 328 

F.3d at 1027; see also Green, 879 F.2d at 309-10 (pretrial detainees have a “right to 

a safe and healthy environment,” and must be provided “basic human necessities,” 

including adequate food, clothing, shelter, personal hygiene, and sanitation). The 

length of time that a detainee is subjected to the allegedly unconstitutional conditions 

is a “critical factor” in the analysis, and “[c]onditions such as a filthy cell that may 

be tolerable for a few days are intolerably cruel for weeks or months.” Smith, 87 

F.3d at 269. 

Case 4:19-cv-00690-LPR Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 5 of 12
6 

Additionally, “[b]ecause a § 1983 action is a type of tort claim, general 

principles of tort law require that a plaintiff suffer some actual injury before he can 

receive compensation.” Irving v. Dormire, 519 F.3d 441, 448 (8th Cir. 2008) 

(emphasis added). The PLRA has engrafted this principle into its “physical injury 

rule,” which specifies that “[n]o 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) & e(h) (including pretrial detainees in definition of “prisoner”). Thus, to 

recover compensatory damages, a prisoner must allege a physical injury that is 

“more than ... de minimis.” McAdoo v. Martin, 899 F.3d 521, 525 (8th Cir. 2018); 

Royal v. Kautzky, 375 F.3d 720, 723 (8th Cir. 2004); see also Bell, 441 U.S. at 539 

n.21 (explaining that “[t]here is ... a de minimis level of imposition with which the 

Constitution is not concerned”). 

 In his Complaint, Horner alleged only that being exposed to the 

unconstitutional conditions in the CCDC made him “fear for [his] safety every day.” 

Doc. 2 at 5. In the Order directing Horner to file an Amended Complaint, the Court 

explicitly instructed him to explain “how he was personally harmed by each of the 

conditions described” in his Complaint. Doc. 4 at 2 (underlined emphasis in 

original). Horner did not follow that instruction and filed an Amended Complaint 

which states only that, being exposed to those conditions of confinement violated 

Case 4:19-cv-00690-LPR Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 6 of 12
7 

his “due process rights.” Doc. 6 at 5. His Amended Complaint is silent on how those 

violations caused him any physical injury. Id. at 4-5. Thus, as Horner’s pleadings 

now stand, the only harm he suffered from being exposed to all of the allegedly 

inhumane conditions of confinement described in his Complaint and Amended 

Complaint, was “fear for [his] safety every day.” Doc. 2 at 5. 

 1. Horner’s Claims Regarding Food Preparation and Serving 

A prisoner’s constitutional rights may be violated if he is served food that is 

“nutritionally inadequate or prepared in a manner presenting an immediate danger 

to his health.” Ingrassia v. Schafer, 825 891, 897 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Wishon v. 

Gammon, 978 F.2d 446, 449 (8th Cir. 1992)). Here, Horner makes no allegation that 

he suffered any adverse physical effects from the unsanitary food preparation and 

serving practices. In addition, he provides no facts to support his vague allegation 

that the food was not served in portions large enough to constitute a “nutritional 

amount.” Finally, he makes no allegation that consuming this food caused him any 

physical injury. See Wishon, 978 F.2d at 448-49 (finding that a prisoner, who was 

served food that “often” contained foreign objects, had not stated a constitutional 

violation because he suffered no harm); Hamm v. DeKalb County, 774 F.2d 1567, 

1575 (11th Cir. 1985) (holding that serving a pretrial detainee food that 

“occasionally contains foreign objects, or is sometimes served cold, while 

unpleasant, does not amount to a constitutional deprivation”). 

Case 4:19-cv-00690-LPR Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 7 of 12
8 

As a pretrial detainee in the CCDC for three months, Horner’s subjective 

“fears” about how the food was prepared and whether the serving sizes he received 

were large enough to be “nutritional,” with no hint that any physical injury

accompanied his “fears,” is not sufficient to state a viable inhumane conditions of 

confinement claim. 

 2. Horner’s Claim That He Was Denied Outside Exercise 

 Horner alleges that, during the three months he was in the CCDC, he was 

denied outside exercise, and claims that being allowed to exercise in the day room 

“does not qualify.” Doc. 2 at 4; Doc. 6 at 4. 

The Eighth Circuit has expressly held that the denial of outside recreation for 

three months is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation. Rahman X v. 

Morgan, 300 F.3d 970, 974 (8th Cir. 2002); but see Wishon, 978 F.2d at 449 (“Lack 

of exercise may be a constitutional violation if one’s muscles are allowed to atrophy 

or if an inmate’s health is threatened.”). Horner does not allege any physical injury

from not being allowed outdoor exercise, and fails to explain how his ability to 

exercise in the day room and his cell was not sufficient. 

Under controlling Eighth Circuit case law, Horner’s allegation, that he was 

denied outdoor exercise for three months, does not rise to the level of a constitutional 

violation, and fails to state a viable inhumane conditions of confinement claim. 

 

Case 4:19-cv-00690-LPR Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 8 of 12
9 

 3. Horner’s Claim That He Was Subjected to Unsanitary Living 

 Conditions 

 Horner alleges that the CCDC was in a “constant state of disrepair,” with leaky 

plumbing, unsanitary water faucets, “black fungus” and mold in the showers, and 

“deteriorating commodes.” He also alleges that the mattresses were not cleaned 

between uses by detainees, no “lice prevention spray” was used on detainees at 

intake, and detainees shared nail clippers and razors. Doc. 2 at 7; Doc. 6 at 4. 

 Pretrial detainees “are entitled to reasonably adequate sanitation [and] 

personal hygiene, ... particularly over a lengthy course of time.” Stickley v. Byrd, 

703 F.3d 421, 423 (8th Cir. 2013). Horner’s allegations, which at best establish that 

he was exposed to generally unsanitary conditions in the CCDC for three months, 

fall far short of demonstrating that those conditions deprived him of “the minimal 

civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Finally, he makes no allegation that being 

exposed to these conditions caused him any physical injury. See Smith, 87 F.3d at 

268 (finding no constitutional violation where a prisoner failed to allege “that he was 

exposed to disease or suffered any other consequences” as a result of being exposed 

to raw sewage). 

 Accordingly, Horner’s three-month exposure to leaky plumbing, unsanitary 

water faucets, black fungus and mold, inadequate cleaning of mattresses, and sharing 

Case 4:19-cv-00690-LPR Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 9 of 12
10 

of nail clippers and razors, with no accompanying physical injury, fails to state a 

viable inhumane conditions of confinement claim. 

 4. Horner’s Claim Related to “Indigent Packs” 

 Horner makes the vague allegation that detainees were required to pay “$2.50 

to $3.00” to receive “indigent packs.” Doc. 2 at 6; Doc. 6 at 4. Although Horner 

does not describe the items in the “indigent pack,” they normally contain various 

personal hygiene items to augment the soap and hot water available to all prisoners. 

“The Constitution does not prohibit charging prisoners for essential prison services, 

at least in the absence of a showing that the result is a severe deprivation of a 

fundamental right.” Holloway v. Magness, 666 F.3d 1076, 1080 (8th Cir. 2012) (no 

constitutional violation from “elevated phone charges” for inmate calls to family 

members); Lewis v. Holloway, No. 5:17cv5099, 2017 WL 3461303, at *4 (W.D. 

Ark. Aug. 11, 2017) (finding “no objectively serious deprivation” due to charging 

$1.50 per week for “indigent pack” supplies). 

Horner makes no allegations that, during the three months he was detained in 

the CCDC: (a) he was actually deprived of any essential items necessary to maintain 

his personal hygiene; or (b) he suffered any physical injury related to not receiving 

an “indigent pack.” Thus, Horner has failed to state a viable inhumane conditions of 

confinement claim related to his lack of access to an “indigent pack.” 

Case 4:19-cv-00690-LPR Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 10 of 12
11 

 5. Horner’s Claim That the Air Conditioner Was Broken 

 Horner admits that he was detained in the CCDC for about two weeks in 

August, all of September and October, and about two weeks in November. During 

that time, Horner alleges the air conditioner was “broken,” and there was only one 

fan. Doc. 2 at 6; Doc. 6 at 4. According to Horner, this constituted an inhumane 

condition of confinement in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. 

 There is no constitutional right to air conditioning. Cotton v. Hutto, 540 F.2d 

412, 414 (8th Cir. 1976) (holding that Arkansas prisons were not constitutionally 

required to air condition the prisons); see also Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278, 

1297-98 (11th Cir. 2004) (no constitutional violation when Florida prison provided 

no air conditioning during summer months); Lane v. Hutcheson, 794 F. Supp. 877, 

884 (E.D. Mo. 1992) (rejecting pretrial detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment claim 

based on lack of air conditioning at jail, where the ventilation system was “adequate” 

and detainee complained only that the heat was “irritating ... in reference to 

emotional disposition”). As with his other claims, Horner does not allege that the 

lack of air conditioning caused him to suffer any physical injury. Thus, under 

controlling Eighth Circuit case law, Horner’s allegations, related to the broken air 

conditioner, fail to state an inhumane conditions of confinement claim. 

Case 4:19-cv-00690-LPR Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 11 of 12
12 

III. Conclusion 

 Accepting all of Horner’s allegations as true, and considering his claims 

together, in their totality, the Court concludes that his Complaint and Amended 

Complaint fail to state any viable constitutional claims. Accordingly, this action 

should be dismissed, without prejudice. 

 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 

 1. Horner’s Complaint and Amended Complaint (Docs. 2 & 6) be 

DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for failing to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted. 

 2. The dismissal of this case be counted as a “STRIKE,” pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

 3. The Court CERTIFY, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in 

forma pauperis appeal from any Order adopting this Recommendation would not be 

taken in good faith. 

 DATED this 12th day of June, 2020. 

 ___________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:19-cv-00690-LPR Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 12 of 12