Opinion ID: 2832723
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Challenge to the Prison Conditions at OSP

Text: Mr. Brewer’s challenges to the prison conditions at OSP arise under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. “The Eighth Amendment, 10 which applies to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments on those convicted of crimes.” Perkins v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 803, 809 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 296–97 (1991)). The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials “provide humane conditions of confinement by ensuring inmates receive the basic necessities of adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care and by taking reasonable measures to guarantee the inmates’ safety.” DeSpain v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965, 974 (10th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Likewise, “[t]he Fourteenth Amendment prohibits any State from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Perkins, 165 F.3d at 808 (quoting Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 223 (1976)). “A prisoner’s liberty interests may arise . . . from state law.” Id. But state-created liberty interests are generally limited to conditions that impose “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id. (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)). As noted, “[i]n determining whether a dismissal is proper, we must accept the allegations of the complaint as true and construe those allegations, and any reasonable inferences that might be drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Kay, 500 F.3d at 1217 (internal quotation marks omitted). a. Abuses by prison employees not named as defendants Mr. Brewer asserts prison officials at OSP violated his constitutional rights when they placed him in unlit cells that smelled of urine, feces, or sewage, and 11 refused to give him a mattress, bedroll, or adequate food and water. According to Mr. Brewer, he was denied food entirely for seven days. He further alleges that at other times, prison employees threw food into his cell so that he would have to eat off the floor. Taken as true, these allegations might well support a plausible claim under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments.12 However, Mr. Brewer’s claims based on these allegations fail because the named defendants are not the individuals Mr. Brewer claims were personally involved in these alleged abuses. For instance, Mr. Brewer alleges that on the day of his transfer to OSP, March 4, 2012, a Sergeant Hammell and Corporal Crenshaw, the son of named defendant Terry Crenshaw, denied him food at lunch and dinner. Other than the fact that Terry Crenshaw and Corporal Crenshaw are father and son, respectively, Mr. Brewer provides no explanation why the named defendant, Terry Crenshaw, should be liable for the alleged conduct of Corporal Crenshaw, who is not named as a defendant. 12 Compare Barney v. Pulsipher, 143 F.3d 1299, 1311 (10th Cir. 1998) (finding no constitutional violation where plaintiffs were temporarily placed in a filthy cell with inadequate lighting and ventilation, there was a lack of enclosures around the shower and toilet, the prison provided unappetizing food, and there was no access to recreational facilities), with Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433, 1442 (10th Cir. 1996) (concluding prisoner sufficiently alleged constitutional violation where he claimed he was “provided no mattress, blankets or bedding of any kind, . . . not allowed to leave his cell for exercise, not provided with writing utensils, not provided with adequate ventilation, . . . and only sometimes allowed minimal amounts of toilet paper,” and “[t]hese conditions supposedly lasted for a period of days, weeks and months”). 12 Mr. Brewer further alleges that because the cell to which he was initially assigned had no lights or working plumbing, Mr. Brewer covered the window to get attention. He alleges a Captain Kennedy responded and moved him to another cell that had functioning plumbing, but also lacked working lights. Mr. Brewer claims he told Captain Kennedy he had not been fed, but Captain Kennedy responded that it was 1:30 a.m. and the kitchen was closed. According to Mr. Brewer, he then went seven consecutive days and nights without food. Mr. Brewer identifies the person responsible for bringing his food as Sergeant Spears13 and alleges Ms. Spears explained to him that Deputy Warden Art Lightle had imposed a seven day sack lunch restriction on Mr. Brewer but the kitchen was not sending the sack lunches. When Mr. Brewer asked for one of the trays of food visible on Ms. Spears’ food cart, she allegedly refused, explaining that the sack lunch restriction prohibited him from having a tray lunch, even if the kitchen was not actually sending the sack lunches. Mr. Brewer further asserts that an African American corrections officer, Sergeant Richard Buie, brought Mr. Brewer sack lunches during his shifts. When Mr. Brewer informed Lieutenant Glover, Ms. Spears’ superior, that Ms. Spears was not bringing him food, Lieutenant Glover claimed to have seen Mr. Brewer receive every meal over the security cameras. Mr. Brewer alleges that after Sergeant Buie 13 Mr. Brewer’s complaint makes allegations against two corrections officers who are married to each other and are both identified as Sergeant Spears in the record. For clarity and because the record does not provide a first name for Ms. Spears, we refer to them as Mr. and Ms. Spears in this decision. 13 told the kitchen to send sack lunches to Mr. Brewer, Ms. Spears withheld them, even when he could see his name and cell number on sack lunches on her cart. But Mr. Brewer has not named Ms. Spears, Captain Kennedy, or Lieutenant Glover as defendants in this action. Mr. Brewer asserts he informed Chief Peters that he had not received his sack lunches for seven days (except for, presumably, the lunches Sergeant Buie brought him). In response, Chief Peters allegedly agreed to have his lieutenants personally bring Mr. Brewer his lunches. Mr. Brewer contends Lieutenant Glover and Lieutenant Jowels thereafter threw Mr. Brewer’s food into his cell so that he would have to eat it off the floor, which he claims contained puddles of water from leaks in the quad’s roof that had seeped in under the door of his cell. Mr. Brewer also failed to name Lieutenant Jowels as a defendant in his complaint. Mr. Brewer next alleges he was moved to a different quad where Ms. Spears’ husband, Sergeant David Spears, was responsible for food delivery. Mr. Spears and an Officer Heartfield allegedly told the inmate “run man”14 on the quad that he would fire him if he gave Mr. Brewer anything. Mr. Brewer claims his new cell again had no functioning lighting, and he could see and smell raw sewage coming up from the pipes. According to Mr. Brewer he was not provided with a mattress or bed roll for seven days and was eating only every other day. When a new inmate run man was 14 “The run man is responsible for cleaning the Quad and passing out tea, juice, milk, coffee, toilet tissue, clothing, and indigent hygiene items.” Brewer, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33393, at . 14 assigned to the quad, Mr. Brewer alleges Officer Heartfield repeated his instruction that Mr. Brewer not be given anything from the cart.15 Mr. Brewer claims he complained to corrections officers Sergeant Taylor16 and Sergeant Hands, who refused to intervene. Mr. Spears, Officer Heartfield, Sergeant Taylor, and Sergeant Hands are also not named as defendants in this action. Mr. Brewer further alleges that a year after complaining about these issues, Deputy Warden Art Lightle and Unit Manager William Taylor moved him to a high max cell.17 According to Mr. Brewer, unnamed corrections officers again denied him food for several days after the move. Mr. Brewer does not identify the prison officials who allegedly withheld food from him while he was housed in a high max cell and offers no allegations connecting these activities to any named defendants. 15 Mr. Brewer adds here an allegation that seems to imply that named defendant Case Manager Sherwood joined Officer Heartfield in this statement to the run man. However, this sole allegation in the complaint relating to Keith Sherwood (reading, in its entirety, “also the case manager Sharewood!”) is simply too tenuous to implicate him, even if the denial of access to items from the run man’s cart could rise to the level of a constitutional violation. 16 Although it is unclear from the allegations in the complaint, this Sergeant Taylor appears to be a different individual than the named Unit Manager William Taylor, based on the plainest reading of the language in the complaint. 17 Although Mr. Brewer does not provide further details about this in his complaint beyond noting that such a move is usually for punishment and he believes he had not been guilty of any misconduct since he arrived at OSP, in one of the grievance notices he attached to his complaint, he explains that he was moved to a high max cell for allegedly throwing something on the run man. 15 b. Allegations against named defendants The district court correctly dismissed Mr. Brewer’s claims, despite his detailed factual allegations, because he failed to allege that any named defendant personally participated in the alleged deprivations. See Mitchell, 80 F.3d at 1441 (affirming district court’s dismissal of claim where plaintiff failed to link the named appellees to the unconstitutional action, and holding that supervisor status by itself is insufficient to support liability). In the absence of specific allegations against one or more named defendants, Mr. Brewer cannot maintain a claim with respect to the conditions at OSP. See Bennett, 545 F.2d at 1262–63 (“Personal participation is an essential allegation in a § 1983 claim.”). To the extent Mr. Brewer has made allegations against the named defendants, we agree with the district court that the specific allegations of misconduct against Defendants Crenshaw, Sherwood, Taylor, and Lightle do not establish actionable due process or Eighth Amendment violations. For example, placing Mr. Brewer on a temporary sack lunch restriction does not implicate due process, see, e.g., Rogers v. Holt, 49 F. App’x 231, 232 (10th Cir. 2002) (holding that there was no arguable due process claim where the prisoner alleged the denial of recreation and substitution of sack lunches for a period of five days), nor does the discretionary decision to transfer him to a high-max cell, see, e.g., Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976) (ruling that changes in prison security classifications do not implicate the Fourteenth Amendment and, therefore, transfer to another, more restrictive prison does not violate due process) and Twyman v. Crisp, 584 F.2d 352, 356–57 (10th Cir. 1978) (concluding 16 that discretionary intra state prison transfers and change of security status do not give rise to due process rights). Likewise, the allegation that Defendant Parker falsified Mr. Brewer’s prison record in order to conceal a refusal to follow OSP policy regarding yard time and showers, even if taken as true, is too vague to establish an actionable constitutional claim. Indeed, Mr. Brewer’s complaint fails to provide any factual detail regarding this claim. Without such information, it is impossible to tell whether the alleged restrictions on yard time and showers implicate the Due Process Clause. Compare Perkins, 165 F.3d at 810 (recognizing that the total denial of exercise for an extended period of time could constitute cruel and unusual punishment), with Marshall v. Morton, 421 F. App’x 832, 838 (10th Cir. 2011) (holding that “restrictions on an inmate’s telephone use, property possession, visitation and recreation privileges are not different in such degree and duration as compared with the ordinary incidents of prison life to constitute protected liberty interests under the Due Process Clause”). For these reasons, Mr. Brewer has failed to sufficiently allege that Defendants Crenshaw, Jones, Knight, Parker, Sherwood, Taylor, or Lightle violated his constitutional rights, and the district court correctly dismissed his due process and Eighth Amendment claims against these named defendants.