Opinion ID: 2796893
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Thebeau and Koenig

Text: Turner alleges that Thebeau and Koenig were deliberately indifferent to Turner's serious medical needs essentially because they (1) forced Turner to be transported and crawl in the non-accessible, unsanitary van and (2) threatened Turner once on March 22, 2011, while they were returning from his appointment at the CRMC. As discussed above, it is factually incorrect to assert that Thebeau and Koenig forced Turner to endure the alleged hardships that he now complains of. In any event, even assuming arguendo that Turner's only option was to crawl in the allegedly unsanitary van, the district court did not err in dismissing Turner's individual-capacity claims against Thebeau and Koenig. -8- Although it is true that inmates are entitled to reasonably adequate sanitation, . . . particularly over a lengthy course of time, Owens v. Scott Cnty. Jail, 328 F.3d 1026, 1027 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (quotation omitted), Turner's exposure to the van's allegedly unsanitary conditions did not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. It is undisputed that the trip between the ERDCC and the CRMC is approximately three hours in each direction, meaning that Turner was exposed to the unsanitary conditions on a single day for a combined maximum of approximately six hours. Assuming Turner's description of the conditions is accurate, he endured an undoubtedly unpleasant, potentially unhealthy experience; nonetheless, the district court did not err in finding no constitutional violation given the record before us and the relative brevity of Turner's experience. Goldman v. Forbus, 17 F. App'x 487, 488 (8th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (finding no constitutional violation when a detainee slept two nights on a cell's floor next to a toilet and urine was sprinkled on him when his cellmates used the toilet); Smith v. Copeland, 87 F.3d 265, 268–69 (8th Cir. 1996) (finding no constitutional violation when detainee was subjected to raw sewage and an overflowed toilet in his cell for four days); Howard v. Adkison, 887 F.2d 134, 137 (8th Cir. 1989) (Conditions, such as a filthy cell, may 'be tolerable for a few days and intolerably cruel for weeks or months.' (quoting Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 687 (1978))).3 Similarly, Thebeau's alleged one-time, one-sentence threat to Turner on March 22, 2011, did not amount to a constitutional violation. Generally, mere verbal threats 3 To the extent Turner argues that his alleged inability to eat a sack lunch during his transportation in the van constitutes an Eight Amendment violation, we disagree. See Hernandez v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 281 F. App'x 862, 866 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (holding that an alleged routine deprivation of lunch to [an inmate] five days per week for about five months did not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation); Lindsey v. O'Connor, 327 F. App'x 319, 321 (3d Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (The purported deprivation of a single meal is not of such magnitude as to rise to the level of a constitutional violation. (citation omitted)). -9- made by a state-actor do not constitute a § 1983 claim. Hopson v. Fredericksen, 961 F.2d 1374, 1378 (8th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). In determining whether the constitutional line has been crossed, a court must look to such factors as the amount of force that was used in relationship to the need presented, the extent of injury inflicted, and the motives of the state officer. Id. (quotation omitted). The alleged threat is redressable under § 1983 if it caused severe injuries, was grossly disproportionate to the need for action under the circumstances and was inspired by malice rather than merely careless or unwise excess of zeal so that it amounted to an abuse of official power that shocks the conscience. Id. (quotation omitted). The isolated threat at issue resulted in no injury; in fact, neither Thebeau nor Koenig took any action whatsoever to effectuate the threat. Turner admitted that Thebeau was like kind of laughing about it, kind of like it was funny when he made the alleged statement, and Turner further admitted that he does not know whether Thebeau was actually playing at the time. Thebeau's alleged statement was wholly improper and unprofessional, but it does not amount to an Eighth Amendment violation, particularly when, by Turner's own admission, it may not have been a true statement. See, e.g., Walton v. Terry, 38 F. App'x 363, 364–65 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal of a prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim that prison officials threatened him, because verbal threats do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment); Hopson, 961 F.2d at 1378–79 (finding no constitutional violation when officers confined plaintiff in a police car, uttered a racial slur, and threatened to knock [his] remaining teeth out of his mouth if he remained silent); Emmons v. McLaughlin, 874 F.2d 351, 353–54 (6th Cir. 1989) (finding no constitutional violation when a patrolman threatened the plaintiff and caused him to fear for his life).