Bonneau v. Thomas et al - Document 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION RYAN BONNEAU, Case No. 3:12-CV-378-PA Plainti ORDER TO DISMISS v. J.E. THOMAS, et al., Defendants. PANNER, District Judge. Plaintiff, an inmate at FCI-Sheridan, brings this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 u.s. plainti 388 (1971). Pursuant to an was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. the reasons set forth below, plainti for entered by the court, 's Complaint is dismissed lure to state a claim upon which rel 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2). III III 1 - ORDER TO DISMISS However, f may be granted. See BACKGROUND inti alleges that defendants have installed metered toilets within FCI-Sheridan which limit the number of times an inmate is able to flush plaintiff, minutes. will toilet in s cell. According to an inmate may only flush his toilet once every five A second flush in less than the next five-minute period result in no more flushes for the next ten minutes. He further alleges the restriction is escalated within the Segregated Housing Unit ("SHUff) where inmates are 11 allowed to flush the toilet after five minutes, but two flushes in less than ten minutes will disable flushing mechanism for one hour. plaintiff, water-saving this initiative violates According to the Eighth Amendment. STANDARDS Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A(a), § isoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental screen entity, of cer, or employee and must dismiss a complaint if the action is frivolous, mali which granted. relief may be 1915A(b) . contain suf gives the court is required to rise ous, or fails to state a claim upon 28 U.S.C. §§ In order to state a claim, plainti cient factual matter which, to a plausible inference plaintiff's constitutional rights. 2 - ORDER TO DISMISS 1915(e) (2) (B) and 's complaint must when accepted as true, that defendants Ashcroft v. Iqbal, violated 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); 556-57 (2007). 1 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. Dismissal for failure to state a claim is proper if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set facts in support of his claims that would entitle him to relief. Ortez v. Washington County, 88 F.3d 804, 806 (9th Cir. 1996); Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1274 (9th r. 1993). Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court construes his pleadings liberally and affords him the benefit of any doubt. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Ortez, 88 F.3d at 806. DISCUSSION "[Pjrison of food, clothing, cials must ensure that inmates rece shelter, reasonable measures to and medical guarantee care, the ty of Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). an Eighth Amendment violation, and adequate must 'take inmates. ,n In order to establish an inmate must make an objective showing that he was deprived of something "sufficien y serious" that of life's 347 (1981). it implicates necessities." Plaintiff must the "minimal Id; Rhodes v. civilized Chapman, measure 452 U.S. 337, so make a subjective showing that the deprivation he endured was the resu 3 - ORDER TO DISMISS of del rate indi rence to his health or safety on the part of the defendants. 35. II Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834­ [D] eliberate indifference describes a blameworthy than negligence." The Eighth sanitation. 1310, (9th 1314-15 Id at 835. prohibits Amendment deprivations Cir. state of mind more severe or Kern, Anderson v. County "[E]xtreme 1995). prolonged 45 F. 3d deprivations required to make out a conditions of confinement claim. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992). inherent II are " [R]outine discomfort the prison setting" does not offend the Constitution. Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2006). The defendants' implementation of water-saving devices at FCISheridan which has the ancillary ef ct of limiting number flushes described above does not result in a prolonged or severe deprivation of Inmates sanitation. within either gene population or the SHU may flush the toilet in their cells every five minutes around clock. If they do so more frequently, general population inmates must wait ten minutes for the system to reset itself, and those in the SHU must wait one hour for the same. This temporary situation does not arise to a sufficiently serious deprivation to implicate Eighth Amendment. 1 While plaintiff asserts that the limitation on flushes in the SHU appears to be punitive because is greater than the limitation impos on the general population, such an inquiry is irrelevant as to whether flushing mechanism as programmed wi thin the SHU is sufficiently severe or prolonged so as to implicate the Eighth Amendment, which it is not. 4 - ORDER TO DISMISS Moreover, it cannot be said that prison officials are deliberately indifferent to sanitation when inmates are allowed to flush their toilets every five minutes. As a result, the Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's Complaint (#2) is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. Because plaintiff cannot cure the deficiencies identified above through amendment, the dismissal is with prejudice and without leave to amend. Plaintiff's request for class certification is DENIED, and his pending Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction (#3) is also DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this ~ day of March, 2012. ~~~ United States Dist 5 - ORDER TO DISMISS ct Judge I I