NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL- TEXT P UBLICA TION File Name: 12 a08 26n. 06 No. 10 -376 0 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FOR THE SIX TH CIRCUIT

PEDRO A GRAMONT E, e t al., Plaint if f s-Appe llants,

v

. J. T . SHART LE, W arde n, Def end ant -Appe llee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP E AL FROM T HE UNITE D ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT FOR T HE NORTHERN DIS T RICT OF OHIO

Bef ore: DAUGHT REY, MOORE, an d COL E, Circuit Ju dges.

MA RTHA CRA IG DA UGHTREY , Circuit Judge

. Plaint if f Ped ro Agramo nte is one of several pro se f ede ral p ri s o n ers w ho are app ealing the judgme nt of the district court dism issing the ir civ il rig hts action , f iled pursu ant to 42 U.S.C. § 198 3, f or f ailure to state a

cause of action upo n w hich relief could be gr ant ed. T his case has bee n ref erred to a pan el of the court p u rs u a n t to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Six th Circuit. Upon examina tion, w e agree that oral arg um ent i s not neede d and tha t disposition i s approp riate und er Federal Rule o f Ap pellat e P roced ure 3 4(a).

As the district court not ed, the gist o f the com plaint is tha t of overcrow ding, which the plaint if f s c o n ten d resulte d f rom the w arde r’s remo deling of som e of the tw o-be d cubicles at Fede ral Correctiona l Cente r Elkton to accom mo dat e three inm ate s. Accordin gNo. 1 0-37 60

Agramonte v. S hartle to the com plaint , this expansion w as accom plished by remo v ing a cha ir and w riting desk in the remo dele d cubicles and replacin g the m w ith a third bed

. As the d is t ri c t court

sum ma riz ed the allegation s, the inm ate s com pla in t h a t t h e gr owth in pop ulatio n at FCI Elkton w as n o t accom pan ied by correspo ndin g imp rov em ent s to the prison’s “inf rastructu re,” w hich le d th e p laintif f s to allege as f ollows:

T hey cont end the num ber of toilet s, urina ls, w ash basin s and showers has not bee n increase d. T hey indicat e inm ate s of ten have to stan d in line to w ait f or a v acan t restroom or shower. T hey indicat e tha t add itiona l hot w ate r tan ks have not bee n installed

. T o ma x imize hot w ate r d u ri ng inm ate showers, w a s hing ma chine s have bee n set to use cold w ate r. T hey state tha t the re are no com f ortab le place s to sit to w rite lette rs or w atch television. T h e y allege tha t chairs w ith me tal gr ills have bee n place d in the c o m m o n area s. T hey indicat e th ese chairs are so u ncom f ortab le th at it is dif f icult to sit throu gh an ent ire mo v ie. Finally , the plaint if f s also co n t e n d t h a t the num be r o f inm ate s in w hee lchairs has increase d at FCI Elkton

. T hey cont end the se inm ate s w ould have a dif f icult time evacuatin g the buildin g in the event of a f ire, due to the num ber of inm ate s in the buildin g. T hey ask the cou rt to orde r FCI Elkton to convert all ce lls back to tw o ma n cells, an d to a w ard t hem m one tary dam ages.

Follow ing rev iew und er the Prison Litigation Ref orm Act, the district court dism issed the com plaint , conclu ding tha t the inm ate s’ allegation s w ere insuf f icient to state a claim f or cruel and unu sual pun ishm ent und er the Eighth Am end me nt or a v iolation of due proce ss und er the Fif

th Am end me nt. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 191 5(e), 191 5A, and 42 U.S.C. § 199 7e. T he district court also den ied subse quent mo ti o n s b y the plaint if f s to alter or am end the judgme nt a nd to grant sum ma ry judgm ent . T he plaint if f s no w ap pea l the se rulings.

- 2 -No. 1 0-37 60

Agramonte v. S hartle W e rev iew de novo a district c o u rt ’s dism issal of a com plaint pursu ant to 28 U.S.C.§ § 191 5(e), 191 5A, and 42 U.S.C. § 199 7e. Grinter v. Knig ht , 532 F.3d 567 , 571 -72 (6 t h Cir. 200 8). Dismissal f or f ailure to state a claim “is a test of the plaint if f ’s cause of action as state d in t h e c o m plaint , not a challen ge to the plaint if f ’s f actu al allegation s.” Golde n v. City of Colum bus , 404 F.3d 950 , 958 -59 (6th Cir. 200 5). Here, the district court conclu ded , and w e agree, tha t “[e]ven if the plaint if f s’ allegation s are accep ted as true, the y do not stat e a vi olatio n o f the ir Eighth Am end me nt rights.” A s the district co urt n ote d:

W hile crow ded cond it io ns can be restrictiv e and even harsh , the y do not v iolate the Eighth Am end me nt unle ss the y dep riv e the inm ate of the min ima l civ iliz ed me asure of

lif e's nece ssities. Rhod es v. Chap m an , 45 2 U.S . 33 7, 347 (198 1). Inm ate s “cann ot expect the am enitie s, c o n venie nces and serv ices of a good hot el.” Harris v. Flem ing, 839 F.2d 123 2, 123 5 (7th Cir.1988 ); see Thad deu s-X v. Blatt er ,17 5 F.3d 3 7 8 , 4 0 5 (6th Cir. 199 9). Altho ugh the plaint if f s m a y have bee n subje cted to unco mf ortab le liv ing cond itions, the y do not allege w ith any specif icity tha t the y w ere subje cted to cond itions tha t could re a s o n a b ly be describe d as an unn ecessa ry and w ant on inf liction of pain

. Plaint if f s have n o t a ll e ged a dep riv ation w hich trig gers Eighth Am end me nt scru tiny.

W ithou t question , “[p]rison of f icials “must ensu re tha t in m a t es receive ade quate f ood , clothin g, shelte r, and me dical care, and mu st ‘take reaso nab le me asure s to
gua ra n t e e t h e saf ety of the inm ate s.’” Farm er v. Brenn an , 511 U.S. 825 , 832 (199 4) (q uot ing Hudso n v. Palmer , 468 U.S. 517 , 5 2 6 -2 7 (198 4)). Harsh and unco mf ortab le prison cond itions do not aut om atically create an Eighth Am end me nt v iolation , howev er. Rathe r, “ex trem e dep riv ation s” mu st be alleged in orde r to supp ort a prison-overcrow ding claim. Hudso n v. McMil lian , 503 U.S. 1, 9 (199 2). In this case, the plain t if f s h ave f ailed

- 3 -No. 1 0-37 60

Agramonte v. S hartle to allege tha t the cond itions of the ir conf inem ent w ere suf f iciently one rous to state a claim und er the Eighth Am end me nt. See , e.g

. , Presto n v. Sm ith , 750 F.2d 530 , 5 3 4 (6 t h Cir. 198 4) (f inding no Eighth Am end me nt v iolation w here prisone r alleged tha t his segregation cell lacked a ma ttress or hot w ate r); Colem an v. Gove rnor of Michigan , 413 F. App ’x 866 , 875 (6th Cir. 201 1) (holdin g tha t com plaint s of “lack of access to televisions, bet ter shoe s, specif ic den tal prod ucts and dif f eren t lig h t in g” did not state a claim of an Eighth Am end me nt v iolation ). Altho ugh the FCI Elkton inm ate s ma y have bee n incon v enie nced by the increase d pop ulatio n, overcrow ding is not , in itself , a const itution al v iolation , and the plaint if f s have not allege d t h at the allegedly overcrow ded cond itions resulte d in an

unco nstitu tiona l den ial of such basic nee ds as f ood , shelte r, or sanita tion. See W ilson v. Seite r , 50 1 U.S . 29 4, 2 98 (199 1); Rhod es v. Chap m an , 45 2 U.S . 33 7, 3 45-4 8 (19 81).

T he plaint if

f s’ oth er allegation s also f ail to state a cla im und er Rule 12(b )(6). T he
state me nts regarding the v ent ilation sy stem are conclu sory , and the allegation regarding f ire saf ety v iolation s is spe culative. Moreo v er, th is case is distinguisha ble f rom Brow n v. Plata , __ U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 191 0 (201 1), on w hich the prisone rs rely. I n Brow n , the Sup re m e Court conclu ded tha t Calif ornia’s prison pop ulatio n nee ded to be redu ced beca use the ov ercrow ding, w hich w as a t 20 0-30 0 p ercen t of cap acity, “imped e[d ] ef f orts to iden tif y inm ate me dical or me nta l hea lth nee ds and provide even rudim ent ary care.” Id.
at 193 4. Here, howev er, the plaint if f s have not alleged overcrow ding tha t rises to the level f oun d to be unco nstitu tiona l in Brow n and , thu s, the district court did not err in conclu ding tha t th e a llegations f ailed to st ate a violation of the Eighth Am end me nt. - 4 -No. 1 0-37 60

Agramonte v. S hartle Nor did the district court err in dism issing the plaint if f s’ due proce ss claims. T he plaint if f s have not set out a proce dura l due proce ss claim beca use the y do not allege tha t the y have suf

f ered an atypical or significan t hard ship, as requ ired by San din v. Conn er , 515 U.S. 472 , 484 (199 5). T hey have not set out a subst ant iv e due proce ss claim beca use the cond itions alleged to exist at FCI Elkton , even if proven, w ould not me et the “shock the conscie nce” stan dard app licable to such claims. See , e.g

. , Braley v. City of Pon tiac , 906 F.2d 22 0, 2 25 (6th Cir. 199 0).

Finally , the district court did not err in dism issing the com plaint bef ore providing the plaint if f s w ith discovery

. T he Prison Litigation Ref orm Act requires district courts to screen prisone r claims “bef ore docke ting, if f easib le, or, in any event, as soon as practica ble af ter docke ting.” 28 U.S.C. § 1 915 A(a) & (b ). In ad dition , district co urts have no discretio n to allow leave to am end to avoid sua spon te dism issal und er the Act. See McGore v. W rigglesw orth , 11 4 F.3 d 6 01, 61 2 (6t h Cir. 19 97).

For the reaso ns se t ou t ab ove, w e A FFIRM the judgme nt o f the district co urt.

- 5 -No. 1 0-37 60

Agramonte v. S hartle KA REN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge, diss enting. Beca use I believe tha t dism issal of this ent ir e case base d on f ailure to state a claim is prem atu re, I respe ctf ully dissen t.

T o avoid dism issal f or f ailure to state a claim und er the Prison Litigation Ref orm Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 191 5(e), 191 5A; 42 U.S.C. § 199 7e(c), the prisone rs w e re not required to prove the truth of the ir assertio ns; rathe r, the y nee ded only to ma ke allegation s tha t, w hen v iew ed in the ir f avor, “state a claim to relief tha t is plau sible on its f ace. ” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Two m bly , 550 U.S. 544 , 570 (200 7); see also Flano ry v. Bon n , 604 F.3d 249 , 252 –53 (6th Cir. 201 0).

I agree wi th t he ma jority ’s conclu sion t hat m any of the plaint if

f s’ claims am oun t to

no mo re tha n allegation s of unco mf ortab le liv ing cond itions, w hich do not rise to the level

o f a n E ig h th Am end me nt claim. Rhod es v. Chap m an , 452 U.S. 337 , 349 (198 1). T h e

sam e is true f or the plaint if f s’ due -process claims, which do not me et the stan dard s f or statin g eithe r a proce dura l or a subst ant iv e due -process v iolation

. Giv en the mo re lenien t plea ding stan dard af

f orde d p ro se litig ant s, howev er, I be liev e th at a f ew of the plain tif

f s’ claims shou ld have bee n perm itted to mo v e f orw ard. In the ir f ourth cause of action , f or instan ce, the plaint if

f s cont end tha t prison of f icials cut of

f the hot w ate r to the w ash ing

ma chine s, th ereb y

preventin g inma tes f rom w ashin g th eir clothe s in hot w ate r in spite of

num er o u s in m a t e s having co ntract ed stap h inf ection s. Com pl. ¶¶ 10, 22. Similarly, t he plaint if f s’ f if th cause of action alleges tha t an inad equate and unh ealth y v ent ilation sy stem

- 6 -No. 1 0-37 60

Agramonte v. S hartle has cause d f requent respirato ry inf ection s in the prison pop ulatio n. Id. ¶¶ 11, 26. Bot h of the se allegations raise the possibilityof hea lth o r sanita tion prob lem s tha t, if tr eat ed w ith delibe rate indif

f eren ce by

pri son of

f icials, could v iolate the prisone rs’ Eighth Am end me nt rig hts. See Rhod es , 452 U.S. at 348 (stating the Eighth Am end me nt’s conce rn w ith “dep riv ation s of essen tial f ood , me dical care, or sanita ti o n ”) ; cf. Boa rd v. Farnha m , 394 F.3d 469 , 475 , 486 (7th Cir. 200 5) (notin g tha t the plaint if f s’ claims base d on the adverse hea lth ef f ects cause d by an inad equate v ent ilation sy stem had bee n perm itted to proce ed beyond the dism issal stage and hold ing tha t extremely poo r v ent ilation could const itute an Eighth A me ndm ent vi olatio n).

Altho ugh it is true tha t the plaint if f s’ allegation s do not align w ith tho se iden tif ied in the Sup reme Court’s decision in Brow n v. Plata , 131 S. Ct. 191 0 (201 1), not hing in Brow n

s u ggests tha t only alleged v iolation s as egregi ous as tho se occurring in the pr is o n s involv ed in tha t case can avoid dism issal und er the PLRA. Moreover, even cond itions tha t create only a f utu re risk of unre ason able hea lth issues can raise E ig h t h Am end me nt

conce rns. Flano ry , 604 F.3d at 255 (citing Helling v. McKinne y , 509 U.S. 25, 33 (199 3)). Accordin gly , I w ould rev erse th e district court’s orde r of dism issal of the plaint if f s’ f ourth and f if th ca uses of

actio n a nd rema nd f or f urthe r procee dings.

- 7 -