Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190613_0001498.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-10-23 11:24:07
Document Index: 174584961

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 636', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1230', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

FindACase™ | Clark v. Decker
Clark v. Decker
Antoine A. Clark, Plaintiff,
Warden Decker, Ford, Cannon, Smith, Woods, Bruker, Howard, Allen, Jackson, Crowe, Bragg, Kampeesay, Blackwell, Robbins, and Stephon, Defendants.
Antoine A. Clark (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Warden Decker, Ford, Cannon, Smith, Woods, Bruker, Howard, Allen, Jackson, Crowe, Bragg, Kampeesay, Blackwell, Robbins, and Stephon (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge.
Plaintiff is an inmate at Kershaw Correctional Institution (“Kershaw”) and brings this action against Defendants in both their individual and official capacities. Plaintiff alleges while in solitary confinement at Kershaw he endured unconstitutional conditions of confinement, including denial of recreation and exercise; deprivation of fresh air and sunshine; hard, cold, and inadequate food; limited showers, haircuts, and shaves; an unhealthy and unsanitary environment; and deprivation of medical and mental health treatment. [ECF No. 1 at 10-11]. In addition, Plaintiff alleges one defendant tampered with his personal mail. Id. at 11. Plaintiff contends Defendants violated his First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Id. at 8. He seeks monetary and injunctive relief. Id. at 13.
To state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an aggrieved party must sufficiently allege he was injured by “the deprivation of any [of his or her] rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the [United States] Constitution and laws” by a “person” acting “under color of state law.” See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see generally 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1230 (3d ed. 2014).
To assert a viable § 1983 claim against a particular public official, Plaintiff must allege a causal connection or affirmative link between the conduct of which he complains and the official sued. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (providing that a plaintiff in a § 1983 action must plead that the defendant, through his own individual actions, violated the Constitution); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72 (1976) (holding a § 1983 plaintiff must show that he suffered a specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant, and an affirmative link between the injury and that conduct); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 850 (4th Cir. 1985) (“In order for an individual to be liable under § 1983, it must be ‘affirmatively shown that the official charged acted personally in the deprivation of the plaintiff's rights. The doctrine of respondeat superior has no application under this section.'”) (quoting Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir. 1977)); Vinnedge, 550 F.2d at 928 (finding for an individual to be liable under § 1983, it must be affirmatively shown that the official charged acted personally in the deprivation of the plaintiff's rights).
In addition, Plaintiff must show Defendants acted with deliberate indifference. See Hi l v. Nicodemus, 979 F.2d 987, 991 (4th Cir. 1992). To show deliberate indifference, an inmate must establish two requirements: (1) objectively, the deprivation suffered or injury inflicted was “sufficiently serious, ” and (2) subjectively, the prison officials acted with a “sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Williams v. Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756, 761 (4th Cir. 1996). Objectively, the court must assess “whether society considers the risk that the prisoner complains of to be so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to such a risk. In other words, the prisoner must show that the risk of which he complains is not one that today's society chooses to tolerate.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 36 (1993) (emphasis in original).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In addition, to challenge prison conditions, Plaintiff must show &ldquo;evidence of a serious or significant physical or emotional injury resulting from the challenged conditions.&rdquo; Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375, 1381 (4th Cir. 1993) (“The Eighth Amendment does not prohibit cruel and unusual prison conditions; it prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. If a prisoner has not suffered serious or significant physical or mental injury as a result of the ...