11-3765

Jabbar v. Fischer 

### U N I T E D 

### S T A T E S 

### C O U R T O F 

### A P P E A L S F O R T H E 

### S E C O N D 

### C I R C U I T Augus t Ter m 201 1 (Subm itted : Ma y 31, 2012 Decid ed: June 21, 2 012) Docke t No. 11-3 765



### MU H AMMA D 

### A . JAB B AR 

### ,

Plain tiff-Appel lant , v. 

### B R I AN 

### F I S C H E R 

### , C O MM I S S I O N E R O F 

### N E W 

### Y O R K 

### S T A T E 

### P R I S O N S 

### , RA Y M O N D 

### J . C U N N I N G H AM 

### , S U P E R I N T E N D E N T O F 

### W O O D B O U RN E 

### C O RRE C T I O NA L 

### FA C I L I T Y 

### , S C O T T 

### J . C AR L S E N 

### , S U P E R I N T E N D E N T O F 

### U L S T E R 

### C O RRE C T I O NA L 

### F A C I L I T Y 

### , Defen dants -Appe llees . Befor e: W I N T E R , C H I N , and D R O N E Y , Circu it Ju dges .

Appea l fro m a j udgme nt ofthe Unite d Sta tes Distr ict C ourt for t he So uther n Dis trict of N ew Yo rk (J ones, J. ) dis missi ng a compl aint broug ht bya st ate i nmate who alleg ed vi olati ons o f his cons titut ional righ ts wh en he was trans porte d on a bus with out aseat belt and w as in juredwhen throw n fro m his seat .

A F F I RM E D .Muhammad A . Jab bar, pro s e , Woo dbour ne, New Y ork. Barba ra D. Unde rwood , Sol icito r Gen eral, Micha el S. Belo hlave k, Se nior Couns el, M arionR. B uchbi nder, Assis tant Solic itor Gener al, for Eric T. Sc hneid erman , Att orney Gener al ofthe State of N ew Yo rk, New Y ork, New Y ork, for D efendantsAppel lants .

P E R C U R I AM : Plain tiff- appel lant Muhammad Abdul Jabba r, a state inmat e pro ceedi ng pro s e , all eges that defen dants -appe llees viola ted h is co nstit ution al ri ghts underthe Eight h and Fourt eenthAmen dment s by trans porti ng hi m on a bus with out a seatb elt. The Unite d Sta tes D istri ct Co urt f or th e Sou thern Distr ict o f NewYork(Jon es, J. ) dis misse d the acti on. Jabba r app eals. We hold that the f ailur e of priso n offic ials to pr ovide seat belts to p risoninma tes d oes n ot, stand ing a lone, viol ate t he Ei ghth or Fo urtee nth Amendm ents. Accor dingl y, we affi rm.

-2-BACKG ROUND The f ollow ing f acts are d rawn from Jabba r's compl aint filedon M ay 26 , 201 0. W e con strue the compl aint liber ally, acce ptingall factu al al legat ions in th e compl aint as tr ue, a nd dr awingall reaso nable infe rence s in Jabba r's f avor. See Chambe rs v. TimeWarn er, Inc. , 282 F.3d 147, 152 ( 2d Ci r. 20 02). Furt her, we co nstru e a pro s e compl aint "to r aise the s trong est a rgume nts [ it] sugge st[s] ." Pabonv. W right , 459 F.3d241, 248 (2d C ir. 2006) (quo ting Burgo s v. Hopki ns , 14 F.3d 787, 790 ( 2d Ci r. 1994) ). On Ap ril 2 4, 20 09, J abbar , an inmat e inc arcer ated at Wo odbou rne C orrec tiona l Fac ilityin W oodbo urne, New York ("Woo dbour ne"), was trans porte d to and f rom amedi cal appoi ntmen t at an ou tside faci lity. He was t ransp ortedon an Ul ster Corre ction al Fa cilit y ("U lster ") "h ub bu s" th at did n ot ha ve se atbel ts fo r inm ate p assen gers (alth ough seatb elts were provi ded f or co rrect ions offic ers). Dur ing trans port, Jabb ar wa s sha ckledfromhis wrist s to his ankle s. T he bu s mad e a f orcef ul tu rn an d Jab bar, who h ad

-3-falle n asl eep, was t hrownfromhis seat. He hit h is he ad on

anoth er se at an d was knoc ked u ncons cious . He sust ained injur ies t o his face , hea d, an d bac k.

Jabba r sue d def endan ts -- the Commi ssion er ofNew York State Pris ons, the S uperi ntend ent o f Woo dbour ne, a nd the S uperi ntend ent o f Uls ter - - con tendi ng th at th eir failu re to prov ide abus seatb elt v iolat ed hi s Eig hth a nd Fourt eenthAmen dment righ ts. Jabba r all eged that defen dants : kn ew th at th e Uls ter h ub bu s didnot have seatb elts for i nmate s, ha d the auth orityto o rder the u se of buses withseat belts , andfail ed to prov ide s eatbe lts o n the bus f or in mates .

On Ja nuary7, 2 011, defen dants move d to dismi ss. On Au gust 10, 2 011, the d istri ct co urt g rante d the moti on.

This appea l fol lowed .

DISCU SSION We re view de no voa di stric t cou rt's grant of a Rule 12(b) (6) m otionto d ismis s. See Chambe rs , 282 F.3dat 152; see a lso Fed. R. Ci v. P. 12(b )(6). "To surv ive a motio n to dismi ss, acomp laint must cont ain s uffic ient

-4-factu al ma tter, acce pted as tr ue, t o sta te a claimto r elief

that is pl ausib le onits face. " Ashcr oft v . Iqb al , 556 U.S. 662, 678 ( 2009) (int ernal quot ationmark s omi tted) .

We ho ld th at th e fai lure of pr ison offic ials to provi de in mates withseat belts on p risontran sport buse s does not, stand ing a lone, viol ate t he Ei ghth or Fo urtee nth Amendments . Ac cordi ngly, we a ffirmthe distr ict c ourt' s dismi ssal. I. Appli cableLaw

The E ighthAmen dment 's pr ohibi tion again st cr uel and u nusua l pun ishme nt re quire s pri son c ondit ions to be "huma ne," thoug h not nece ssari ly "c omfor table ." Gasto n v. Cough lin , 249 F.3d156, 164 (2d C ir. 2 001) (inte rnal quota tion marks omit ted) (citi ng Farme r v. Brenn an , 511 U.S. 825, 832 ( 1994) , and Rhode s v. Chapm an , 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981 )); seeU.S. Cons t. am end. VIII. To es tabli sh an Eight h Ame ndmen t vio latio n, aninma te mu st sh ow: "(1) a depri vatio n tha t is objec tivel y, su ffici entlyseri ous t hat he wa s den ied t he mi nimal civi lizedmeas ure o f lif e's

neces sitie s[;] and ( 2) a suffi cient ly cu lpabl e sta te ofmind

-5-on th e par t of the d efend ant o ffici al, s uch a s del ibera te

indif feren ce to inma te he alth or sa fety. " Gasto n , 249 F.3d at 16 4 (ci ting Farme r , 511 U.S. at 8 34) ( inter nal quotat ion marks omit ted).

As to the objec tive eleme nt, t here is no "sta tic test" to d eterm ine w hethe r a d epriv ationis s uffic ientl y serio us; " [t]he cond ition s the mselv es mu st be eval uatedin light of c ontemporar y sta ndard s of decen cy." Blis sett v. Cough lin , 66 F.3d 531, 537 ( 2d Ci r. 19 95) ( citin g Rhode s , 452 U .S. a t 346 ). W e hav e hel d tha t pri soner s maynot be depri ved o f the ir "' basichuma n nee ds -- e.g. , foo d, cloth ing, shelt er, m edica l car e, an d rea sonab le sa fety' " -- and t hey m ay no t be expos ed "t o con ditio ns th at 'p ose a n

unrea sonab le ri sk ofseri ous d amage to [ their ] fut ure healt h.'" Phelp s v. Kapno las , 308 F.3d180, 185 (2d C ir. 2002) (percuri am) ( quoti ng Helli ng v. McKi nney , 509 U.S. 25, 3 2, 35 (199 3)).

As fo r the subj ectiv e requirem ent, delib erate indif feren ce re quire s "mo re th an me re ne glige nce." Farme r , 511 U .S. at 83 5. T he pr ison offic ial must k now o f, an d

-6-disre gard, an e xcess ive r isk t o inm ate h ealthor s afety .

Id. at 83 7. " [A]n offic ial's fail ure t o all eviat e a signi fican t ris k tha t he shoul d hav e per ceive d but did not

. . . [can not] be co ndemn ed as the infli ctionof punis hment ." Id. at 83 8.

To es tabli sh a due p roces s vio latio n of the Fourt eenthAmen dment , an inmat e mus t sho w tha t a g overn ment offic ial m ade adeli berat e dec isionto d epriv e himof h is life, libe rty, or pr opert y. See D aniel s v. Willi ams , 474 U.S. 327, 331 ( 1986) ; see a lsoU.S. Cons t. am end. XIV. Merel y neg ligen t con duct does not g ive r ise t o cla ims u nder the F ourte enth Amendment. See D aniel s , 474 U.S. at 3 31, 333. II. Appli cation

We ha ve no t yet addr essedwhet her t he Ei ghth or Fourt eenthAmen dment s are viol ated when a pri son o ffici al does not p rovid e a b us se atbel t to a pri son i nmate in trans port. Oth er co urts have rejec ted t hese claim s. T he Eight h andElev enth Circu its h ave h eld t hat t he fa ilure to provi de aninma te wi thout a se atbel t doe s not , sta nding

-7-alone , giv e ris e to a con stitu tiona l cla im. See S pence r v. Knaph eide TruckEqui p. Co . , 183 F.3d902, 906- 07 (8 th Ci r. 1999) ; Smithv. S ec. for Dep't o f Corrs. , 252 F. App'x 301, 303-0 4 (11 th Ci r. 20 07) ( per c uriam ); cf. B rown v. Fo rtner , 518 F .3d 5 52, 5 59-62 (8thCir. 2008 ) (ho ldingthat driv ing reckl esslywhil e tra nspor ting shack led i nmate with out seatb elt d espit e requests to s low d own c onsti tuted

unrea sonab le an d sub stant ial r isk o f har m vio latin g Eig hth Amendment) . Th e Fif th an d Ten th Ci rcuit s agr ee, a lbeit in non-p reced entia l dec ision s. S ee Cooksv. Crain , 327 F. App'x493, 494 (5th Cir. 2009) (percuri am); Dexte r v. Ford Motor Co. , 92 F. Ap p'x 6 37, 6 41-43 (10t h Cir . 200 4) (o rder and j udgme nt). Nume rous distr ict c ourts have also reje cted such claim s. Seee.g. , Carr asqui llo v . City of New York , 324 F . Sup p. 2d428, 437- 38 (S .D.N. Y. 20 04); Shep ard v . Davie ss Cty. De t. Ct r. , No. 10-c v-105 , 201 1 WL 9342, at * 6 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 3, 20 11); Oterov. Catalo gne , No. 08-2 82, 2010 WL 38 83444 , at **7-9 (W.D . Pa. Sept . 28, 2010 ); Walls v. Ka ho , No. 06-c v-188 , 200 9 WL 90191 7, at *2 ( S.D. Miss. Mar. 31, 2 009); Young v. D ep't of Co rrs. , No. 04-1 0309, 2007

-8-WL 22 14520 , at **4-6 (E.D . Mic h. Ju ly 27 , 200 7) ; Moje t v.

Transp. Dr iver , No. 06-c v-321 , 200 6 WL 33929 44, a t *2 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 22, 2 006); Willi ams v . City of New York , No. 03- cv-53 42, 2 005 W L 286 2007, at * *2-3 (S.D. N.Y. Nov. 1, 20 05); Lopezv. N . Ari z. Co ca-Co la Bo ttlin g Co. , No. 99-c v-192 , 2001 WL 11 05129 , at *1 (D . Ari z. Se pt. 1 2, 20 01).

For t he re asons that foll ow, w e als o hol d tha t the failu re ofpris on of ficia ls to prov ide i nmate s wit h seatb elts does not, witho ut mo re, v iolat e the Eigh th or Fourt eenthAmen dment s.

First , as for t he Ei ghth Amendment' s obj ectiv e requi remen t, th e fai lure to pr ovide a se atbel t is not, in itsel f, "s uffic ientl y ser ious" to c onsti tute an Ei ghth Amendment viola tion. See Gaston , 249 F.3dat 1 64 (c iting Farme r , 511 U.S. at 8 34). A bu s sea tbelt is n ot a "life [ ]

neces sit[y ]." See i d . Wh ile s eatbe lts m ay of fer "reas onabl e saf ety" for t he ge neral publ ic, see Phelps , 308 F.3d at 18 5, ona pr ison bus t heir prese nce c ould prese nt safet y andsecu rity conce rns, see S pence r , 183 F.3dat 9 07; Carra squil lo , 324 F. S upp. 2d at 437 (citi ng Spenc er , 183

-9-F.3d at 90 7). Inmat es, e ven h andcu ffed or ot herwi se

restr ained , cou ld us e sea tbelt s as weapo ns to harmoffi cers, otherpass enger s, orthem selve s. See S pence r , 183 F.3dat 907; Carra squil lo , 324 F. S upp. 2d at 437 (citi ng Spenc er , 183 F .3d a t 907 ). Acorr ectio nal f acili ty's use o f veh icles witho ut se atbel ts to tran sport inma tes, when basedon legit imate peno logic al co ncern s rat her t han a n int ent t o punis h, is reas onabl e. Spenc er , 183 F.3dat 9 07; see Carra squil lo , 324 F. S upp. 2d at 437- 38.

Secon d, as for the E ighthAmen dment 's su bject ive requi remen t, be cause the absen ce ofseat belts on i nmate bus trans port is it self not a n exc essiv e ris k, wi thout more , "deli berat e ind iffer ence" –- t hat i s, th at de fenda nts k new of, a nd di srega rded, an e xcess ive r isk t o inm ate s afety–-

canno t be plaus ibly alleg ed. See Farmer , 511 U.S. at 8 37.

Third , forthe reaso ns st ated above , und er th e Fourt eenthAmen dment , fai lure to pr ovide an i nmate witha seatb elt d oes n ot co nstit ute adepr ivati on oflife , lib erty, or pr opert y. See D aniel s , 474 U.S. at 3 31, 3 33.

-10-Here, Jabb ar di d not alle ge th at th ere w as an y

inten t to punis h or otherimpr oper motiv ationfor the l ack of in mate seatb elts on th e Uls ter h ub bu s, an d we canno t

reaso nablyinfe r suc h int ent. See S pence r , 183 F.3dat 9 07 ("Whe n a p olicylack s an expre ss in tent to pu nish, as t his one d oes, we ma y inf er su ch aninte nt ifthe polic y is eithe r unr elate d to a leg itima te pe nolog ical goal or

exces sive in re latio n to that goal. "). Jabba r didnot alleg e tha t def endan ts kn ew ofany exces sive risk to in mate safet y. See Farmer , 511 U.S. at 8 37. Inde ed, t he co mplai nt alleg ed "g ross negli gence " anda "f ail[u re] t o sup ervis e adequ ately ," ra ther than an in tent to pu nish. (Co mpl. at 6). Thus, with out m ore, the c ompla int f ailedto a llege suffi cient fact s to state a pl ausib le cl aim. See I qbal , 556 U.S. at 67 8. T he di stric t cou rt di d not err in di smiss ing the c ompla int. CONCL USION

Accor dingl y, th e jud gment of t he di stric t cou rt is AFFIR MED .

-11-