Court Opinion

ID: 9962353
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 16:00:37.641976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:28.321816
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 22-3617
                         ___________________________

                          DeAngelo Lamont Thomas-El

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

          Nicole Francis, Case Manager, Individual Capacity; Jason Lee

                                    Defendants - Appellants
                                  ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                  for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
                                  ____________

                          Submitted: November 16, 2023
                              Filed: April 23, 2024
                                 ____________

Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

ERICKSON, Circuit Judge.

       Nicole Francis and Jason Lee appeal the district court’s 1 order denying them
qualified immunity on DeAngelo Lamont Thomas-El’s Eighth Amendment claim
pertaining to the deprivation of toothpaste for four and a half months while
incarcerated at the Potosi Correctional Center (“PCC”). We affirm.

      1
       The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of Missouri.
        Thomas-El received a small monthly allowance in his inmate account to spend
at his discretion. Over the course of nearly five months, after his state and federal
filing fees were deducted from his allowance, Thomas-El requested toothpaste, soap,
and deodorant from PCC staff because he could not afford them. At the end of
January 2020, still without toothpaste, Thomas-El visited the medical facility
complaining of a cavity, tooth pain, and a “rotten taste” in his mouth. He was placed
on a waitlist to receive a filling.

       Thomas-El filed this action against various PCC officials. The district court
dismissed his Eighth Amendment claim for deprivation of soap and deodorant and
denied summary judgment and qualified immunity on Thomas-El’s claim pertaining
to the deprivation of toothpaste, finding a fact issue existed as to whether Francis
and Lee acted with deliberate indifference. Francis and Lee appeal the district
court’s denial of qualified immunity.

       We review the denial of qualified immunity de novo, viewing the record in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and making all reasonable
inferences in his favor. Thurmond v. Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007, 1011 (8th Cir. 2020).
In this context, our jurisdiction is limited to deciding “the purely legal issue of
whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff are a violation of clearly established law.”
Raines v. Counseling Assocs., Inc., 883 F.3d 1071, 1074 (8th Cir. 2018). In other
words, our task is to determine whether the conduct alleged by the plaintiff, which
the district court deemed sufficiently supported for purposes of summary judgment,
violated a clearly established federal right. Shannon v. Koehler, 616 F.3d 855, 861
(8th Cir. 2010).

      Thomas-El’s Eighth Amendment claim is best characterized as a conditions
of confinement claim, which is analyzed under a deliberate indifference standard.
Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 303 (1991). The deliberate indifference standard has
two components: an objective component and a subjective component.

                                         -2-
       First, the alleged violation “must be, objectively, ‘sufficiently serious.’”
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (quoting Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298). To
satisfy the objective prong, the deprivation must “result in the denial of ‘the minimal
civilized measure of life’s necessities.’” Id. (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S.
337, 347 (1981)). This Court has noted that “a long-term, repeated deprivation of
adequate hygiene supplies violates inmates’ Eighth Amendment rights.” Myers v.
Hundley, 101 F.3d 542, 544 (8th Cir. 1996) (citing Howard v. Adkison, 887 F.2d
134, 137 (8th Cir. 1989)). Thomas-El’s allegations that he was without funds to
purchase toothpaste and his nearly five months of unsuccessful repeated requests for
toothpaste are sufficient to satisfy the first prong of a deliberate indifference claim.

       The second prong requires the Court to determine whether Francis and Lee
acted with the requisite subjective state of mind. Under established law, a prison
official may only be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for a conditions of
confinement violation if “the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to
inmate health and safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Here, Francis confirmed
Thomas-El sent her a letter requesting hygiene products on September 3, 2019. Lee
confirmed that Thomas-El sent him a similar letter on December 23, 2019. Thomas-
El alleged that he also spoke with Francis and Lee in person, but they denied
speaking to him or, if they spoke to him, they did not ignore or rebuff his requests.
Based on these facts, the district court properly found that a genuine factual dispute
existed over whether Francis and Lee subjectively knew and consciously disregarded
the risk of serious harm that Thomas-El faced by depriving him of toothpaste.

       Finally, we consider whether the law clearly established an inmate’s right to
hygiene supplies during the timeframe alleged in the complaint. In Howard, we held
generally that “inmates are entitled to reasonably adequate sanitation, personal
hygiene, and laundry privileges, particularly over a lengthy course of time.” 887
F.2d at 137. Then, in Myers, we reviewed a similar prison-provided allowance and
established that the Eighth Amendment provides inmates the right to be free from
the “long-term, repeated deprivation of adequate hygiene supplies.” 101 F.3d at 544.
PCC’s operating procedures define toothpaste as a basic hygiene item. Thomas-El’s
                                          -3-
proffered evidence is sufficient to establish the deprivation of a basic necessity and
to raise a triable question of deliberate indifference.

       We affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and remand for
further proceedings.
                      ______________________________

                                         -4-