Ray v. DeSoto County Sheriff Jail et al, No. 2:2012cv00037 - Document 8 (N.D. Miss. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re 7 Judgment. Signed by Michael P. Mills on 7/30/12. (cr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI DELTA DIVISION OLLIE GENE RAY PLAINTIFF V. NO. 2:12CV37-M-A DESOTO COUNTY SHERIFF, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the court on the pro se prisoner complaint of Ollie Gene Ray, who challenges the conditions of his confinement under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. For the purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court notes that the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed this suit. For the reasons set forth below, the instant case shall be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Discussion Ray alleges that mold and mildew were growing on the walls of the jail due to a leaking pipe. [T]he Eighth Amendment may afford protection against conditions of confinement which constitute health threats but not against those which cause mere discomfort or inconvenience. Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 849 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 969 (1989)(citation omitted). Inmates cannot expect the amenities, conveniences, and services of a good hotel. Id. at 849 n.5 (citation omitted). It is clear that prison officials have certain duties under the Eighth Amendment, but these duties are only to provide prisoners with humane conditions of confinement, including adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care . . . . Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 581 n.10 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994)). Based upon a review of the totality of the circumstances, McCord v. Maggio, 910 F.2d 1248 (5th Cir. 1990), the undersigned concludes that the instant claims do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. The plaintiff s sole allegation is that mold and mildew were growing on the walls of the jail, and he fears that it may have affected his lungs. He has not identified any basic human need which he was denied for an unreasonable period of time. See Woods, 51 F.3d at 581. Thus, for the reasons set forth above, the instant case will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. A final judgment consistent with this memorandum opinion will issue today. SO ORDERED, this the 30th day of July, 2012. /s/ MICHAEL P. MILLS CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
