Disean Graham v. C/O E. Felty, et al.

Summary

This Report and Recommendation addresses a pro se prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against employees of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility. The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, concluding that the alleged conditions of confinement, retaliation, cell search, disciplinary report, grievance handling, and isolated mail interference did not establish constitutional violations. The recommendation also advises denying the plaintiff’s motions for temporary restraining orders as moot.

Holdings

1. The complaint fails to state claims against the warden, mailroom supervisor, and officer identified only as a partner because it does not allege their personal involvement, and respondeat superior does not provide a basis for § 1983 liability.
2. The alleged temporary unsanitary conditions, thirteen-day denial of outdoor exercise, showers and hygiene items, and mattress deprivation do not plausibly constitute objectively sufficiently serious deprivations under the Eighth Amendment.
3. The complaint fails to state a plausible First Amendment retaliation or grievance-related claim because it alleges only conclusory retaliatory motive and does not identify a sufficiently adverse, causally connected action.
4. The complaint fails to state a Fourth Amendment claim based on the search of Graham's prison cell because an incarcerated person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the cell.
5. The complaint fails to state a due-process claim based on a false conduct report or removal of the suicide blanket because it alleges neither an effect on the duration of confinement nor an atypical and significant hardship.
6. A single alleged incident in which legal mail was given to the wrong inmate does not plausibly establish unconstitutional interference with legal mail absent allegations of routine interference.
7. The TRO motions should be denied as moot following the recommended dismissal of the complaint and, independently, because they seek relief concerning electronic-tablet interference outside the scope of the complaint.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a plausible Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim based on unsanitary conditions, denial of outdoor exercise, denial of showers and hygiene items, and denial of a mattress.
2. Whether the complaint stated a plausible First Amendment retaliation or grievance-related claim.
3. Whether the complaint stated a Fourth Amendment claim based on a search of a prison cell.
4. Whether the complaint stated a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim based on an allegedly false conduct report and removal of a suicide blanket.
5. Whether the complaint stated a First Amendment legal-mail claim based on a single alleged incident of mail interference.
6. Whether the defendants could be held liable under § 1983 based solely on supervisory status or failure to act.
7. Whether the motions for a temporary restraining order should be denied as moot and because they raised issues outside the complaint.

Disposition

dismissed