Click Back Button to Return to Publication
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
MAURICE TAYLOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
P. BOOT, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
58 Fed. Appx. 125
February 5, 2003, Filed
NOTICE: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE 28(g) LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. PLEASE SEE RULE 28(g) BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. IF CITED, A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE COURT. THIS NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED.
ORDER
Before: NELSON and CLAY, Circuit Judges; HAYNES, District Judge.
*
Maurice
Taylor, a pro se Michigan prisoner, appeals a district court judgment
dismissing his civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This
case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1). Rules
of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral
argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).
Seeking monetary and equitable relief. Taylor sued four prison
officials (Boot, Wells, Singleton, and Berghuis) at Brooks Correctional Facility. Taylor essentially asserted that the defendants
exhibited deliberate indifference to his health in violation of the Eighth
Amendment by celling him with a series of smokers. Upon its initial screening
of the complaint, the district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint for
failure to state a claim and also noted that Taylor had not alleged exhaustion
of administrative remedies. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A; 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(c).
In his timely appeal, Taylor reasserts his claim and moves for
miscellaneous relief.
Upon de
novo review, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the
complaint for failure to state a claim. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997).
In his
complaint, Taylor alleged that he suffers from chronic high blood pressure and
takes a number of medications for that condition. Nonetheless, when he arrived
at the prison on May 23, 2001, he was celled with a smoker. Boot agreed to
transfer him, but ultimately placed him with another smoker. Taylor then
complained to Lewis, who forwarded the complaint to Wells. Taylor was moved a
second time on June 13, 2001, but was placed again with a smoker. Because the
defendants did not place
him with a non-smoker, Taylor asserted that the defendants exhibited deliberate
indifference to his health.
The Eighth Amendment proscribes the "unnecessary and
wanton infliction of pain." Knop v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 996, 1012 (6th Cir.
1992) (citations omitted). A viable Eighth Amendment claim has objective and
subjective components. Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811, 114 S. Ct. 1970 (1994). The
objective component requires that the pain be serious, and the subjective
component requires that the offending conduct be wanton. Hudson v. McMillian,
503 U.S. 1, 8-9, 117 L. Ed. 2d 156, 112 S. Ct. 995 (1992); Wilson v. Seiter,
501 U.S. 294, 297-300, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271, 111 S. Ct. 2321 (1991). For claims
challenging the conditions of confinement, wantonness is equivalent to
deliberate indifference. Wilson, 501 U.S. at 302-03. A prison official acts
with deliberate indifference if he knows of a substantial risk to an inmate's
health, yet recklessly disregards the risk by failing to take reasonable
measures to abate it. Farmer, 511 U.S.
at 837-47. Mere negligence will not suffice.
Id. at 835-36. In the context of an inmate's "second-hand
smoke" claim, the plaintiff must establish that he[*127] has a serious
medical need for a smoke-free environment, Hunt v. Reynolds, 974 F.2d 734, 735
(6th Cir. 1992), or that, regardless of health, the level of environmental
tobacco smoke in the prison creates an unreasonable risk of serious damage to
his future health. Helling v. McKinney,
509 U.S. 25, 35, 125 L. Ed. 2d 22, 113 S. Ct. 2475 (1993).
Taylor
failed to state a claim. Even if it is assumed that Taylor's high blood
pressure constitutes a serious medical need for a smoke-free environment, the
defendants were not deliberately indifferent to that need, but responded
reasonably to it. By Taylor's own admission, the defendants twice transferred
him to another cell when he complained that his cellmate smoked. Furthermore,
the Michigan Department of Correction (MDOC) prohibits smoking inside of all occupied
buildings, including prisoner housing units, and subjects violators of that
policy to disciplinary action. See MDOC Policy Directive 01.03.140. Imperfect
enforcement of the policy shows, at most, negligence by the defendants, rather
than deliberate indifference. See Scott
v. District of Columbia, 329 U.S. App. D.C. 247, 139 F.3d 940, 944 (D.C. Cir.
1998).
Accordingly, all pending motions are denied and the district court's
judgment is affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
* The
Honorable William J. Haynes, Jr., United States District Judge for the Middle
District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.