Eastman v. Maloch et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
RAMON DEWAYNE EASTMAN, SR. 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 6:23-CV-06100
ABIGAIL R. MALOCH (Administrative
Review Officer, Omega Center),
WARDEN WHITE (Security, Omega
Center),
MAJOR MACLOR OTTS (Security, Omega
Center),
DIRECTOR SYRNA BOWERS (Residential
Services, Arkansas Community Correction)
DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief United States District
Judge, 	referred 	this 	case 	to 	the 	undersigned 	for 	the 	purpose 	of 	making 	a 	Report 	and
Recommendation. The case is before the Court for preservice screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A.0F
1 Under § 1915A, the Court is required to screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a).
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on September 12, 2023. 	(ECF No. 1). 	That same day, the
Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint to address deficiencies
in his original Complaint. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff did so on September 28, 2023. (ECF No. 7).
1 Enacted as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).
Case 6:23-cv-06100-SOH Document 8 Filed 10/17/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Garland County Detention Center, but his
Complaint centers on his incarceration in the Arkansas Community Correction (“ACC”) Omega
Supervision Sanction Center.1F
2 (ECF No. 1). 	Plaintiff alleges that from July 2, 2023, through
August 3, 2023, he was placed in segregation and denied recreation, known as “yard call.” (Id. at
4-6). He alleges this caused him to start hearing voices calling his name. (Id. at 6). He states he
now takes Risperdone,2F
3 and the mental health specialist at the facility has indicated his dosage of
the medication will be increased. 	Plaintiff names all Defendant for this claim. 	(Id. at 4). 	He
alleges Defendant Maloch, Administrative Review Officer, was instructed to deny him recreation
by her superiors, the other three Defendants. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that when he filed a complaint
form about the lack of recreation, Defendant Maloch informed him that the Omega Center is a
short-term facility and yard call is not required for those who are housed in segregation. (Id. at 5-
6). 	Plaintiff alleges this violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as the
policies of the Federal Bureau of Prisons for Arkansas residents as stated in 28 C.F.R. § 551.115.
(Id. at 4-5). 	Plaintiff proceeds against all Defendants in their official and individual capacities.
(Id. at 5). 	He seeks compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $5,500.00 for pain,
suffering, and mental issues, and reimbursement of all filing fees. (Id. at 7).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under § 1915A, the Court is obliged to screen the case prior to service of process being
issued. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are
2 Plaintiff identifies himself as a pretrial detainee, but complains of his incarceration in the ACC
Omega Supervision Sanction Center. 	(ECF No. 7 at 2). 	The Omega Center houses convicted
individuals who have violated their probation or parole conditions. 	A review of his state court
history indicates he plead guilty to a felony in December 2020 in State v. Ramon Dewayne
Eastman, 26CR-20-54. 	(Available at Arkansas Court Connect, last accessed Oct. 12, 2023).
While there are several other open state criminal cases against him, Plaintiff is a convicted felon,
and his claims will be analyzed under the Eighth Amendment.
3 This appears to refer to the drug risperidone, brand name Risperdal, which is an anti-psychotic.
(Available at www.pdr.net, last accessed Oct. 12, 2023).
Case 6:23-cv-06100-SOH Document 8 Filed 10/17/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (2) seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action is malicious when the allegations are known to be false, or
it is undertaken for the purpose of harassing or disparaging the named defendants rather than to
vindicate a cognizable right. 	Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F. Supp. 458, 464 (E.D.N.C. 1987); In re
Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1293-94 (8th Cir. 1988). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
“In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts to state a claim, we
hold ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded . . . to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” 	Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). This means “that if the essence of an allegation is
discernable, even though it is not pleaded with legal nicety, then the district court should construe
the complaint in a way that permits the layperson’s claim to be considered within the proper legal
framework.” 	Jackson, 747 F.3d at 544 (cleaned up). 	However, the complaint must still allege
specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s claim that he was denied recreation for 31 days fails to state a plausible
conditions of confinement claim. “[W]hen the State takes a person into its custody and holds him
there against his will, the Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some
responsibility for his safety and general well-being.” Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833,
851 (1998). The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, but neither does it permit
inhumane ones. 	See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The Eighth Amendment
Case 6:23-cv-06100-SOH Document 8 Filed 10/17/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
forbids conditions that involve the “wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain,” or that are “grossly
disproportionate to the severity of the crime.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981).
A prisoner alleging an Eighth Amendment violation must prove both an objective and
subjective element. See Revels v. Vincenz, 382 F.3d 870, 875 (8th Cir. 2004) (citing Wilson v.
Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). “The defendant's conduct must objectively rise to the level of a
constitutional violation by depriving the plaintiff of the minimal civilized measure of life's
necessities. The defendant's conduct must also reflect a subjective state of mind evincing deliberate
indifference to the health or safety of the prisoner.” Id. at 875 (cleaned up). Deliberate indifference
is established when the plaintiff shows “the defendant was substantially aware of but disregarded
an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Id. at 875. However, courts are not concerned with
de minimis levels of imposition on inmates. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979).
A constitutional violation exists only if Defendants were deliberately indifferent to
Plaintiff's exercise needs. Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446, 449 (8th Cir. 1992). 	A “lack of
exercise may be a constitutional violation if one's muscles are allowed to atrophy or if an inmate's
health is threatened.” 	Id. 	Courts reviewing an inmate's lack of exercise claim should consider
factors such as: (1) the opportunity to be out of the cell; (2) the availability of recreation within the
cell; (3) the size of the cell; and (4) the duration of confinement. Id. Lastly, “[c]laims under the
Eighth Amendment require a compensable injury to be greater than de minimis.” Irving v. Dormire,
519 F.3d 441, 448 (8th Cir. 2008). “While a serious injury is not necessary, some actual injury is
required in order to state an Eighth Amendment violation.” White v. Holmes, 21 F.3d 277, 281
(8th Cir. 1994).
Here, Plaintiff has alleged that he was denied yard call for 31 days. 	While the Court is
concerned about an institution’s denial of recreation for this length of time and curious what, if
any, justification exists for this denial, 31 days is an insufficient length of time to establish
Case 6:23-cv-06100-SOH Document 8 Filed 10/17/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
deliberate indifference to his exercise needs. See, e.g. Phillips v. Norris, 320 F.3d 844, 847 (8th
Cir. 2003) (37 days without exercise was not an atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in
the context of normal prison life); Anderson v. Bowers, No. 3:19-CV-00296 JM-PSH, 2020 WL
625236, at *1 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 23, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:19-CV-00296
JM-PSH, 2020 WL 624229 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 10, 2020) (31 days without recreation is insufficient
to state a cognizable claim). 	Plaintiff has not alleged any compensable physical injury, such as
muscle atrophy, or other injury which is required. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) (no prisoner claims
for mental or emotional injury without a prior showing of physical injury).
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is recommended that: (1) the case be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; (2) Plaintiff/Petitioner
is warned that, in the future, this dismissal may be counted as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g) and thus, the Clerk is directed to place a § 1915(g) strike flag on the case for future judicial
consideration; and (3) the Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from
this dismissal would not be taken in good faith.
The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in
which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
DATED this 17thday of October 2023.
/s/ Christy Comstock
HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:23-cv-06100-SOH Document 8 Filed 10/17/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>