Davis v. Boyd, 3:20-cv-00044

Pro se plaintiff Demario Davis, a pretrial detainee at Craighead County Detention Center, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
Court granted in forma pauperis and ordered an Amended Complaint with instructions to plead specific facts and identify each defendant’s conduct.
Plaintiff did not file an Amended Complaint; mail to him was returned undeliverable.
The Complaint lacked specific factual allegations tying the two named defendants to constitutional violations and did not allege deprivation of a single, identifiable human need or the duration of exposure.
Applying Fourteenth Amendment standards for pretrial detainees (at least the protection afforded convicted prisoners), the court found only allegations of discomfort, not deliberate indifference or unconstitutional deprivation.
Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim, that the dismissal count as a PLRA "strike," and that an IFP appeal would not be in good faith.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint states a viable conditions-of-confinement claim under the Fourteenth/Eighth Amendment standards	Davis alleges unconstitutional jail conditions	Complaint contains only generalized discomfort; no facts showing deprivation of a basic human need or deliberate indifference	Dismissed for failure to state a claim — allegations insufficiently specific or severe
Whether plaintiff alleged personal involvement of the named defendants	Named Marty Boyd et al. but no specific actions alleged	No specific allegations showing each defendant’s conduct	Dismissed because no facts showing personal participation or liability under § 1983
Whether plaintiff’s failure to file the ordered Amended Complaint/missed mail justifies dismissal	Plaintiff did not cure pleading defects	Plaintiff failed to comply with Court’s order and did not provide updated contact or amended pleadings	Dismissal recommended without prejudice for failure to amend and clarify allegations
Whether dismissal should be a PLRA strike and whether an IFP appeal would be in good faith	Plaintiff presumably would appeal in forma pauperis	Dismissal was for failure to state a claim	Magistrate recommended counting the dismissal as a PLRA strike and certifying any IFP appeal as not taken in good faith

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (establishes frivolousness standard for prisoner suits)
Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334 (8th Cir. 1985) (pro se complaints must still allege specific facts to state a claim)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se complaints receive liberal construction)
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (courts may dismiss factually baseless prisoner claims)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard and requirement to plead factual content enabling reasonable inference of liability)
Griffin-El v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 835 F. Supp. 1114 (elements for § 1983 claims)
Owens v. Scott County Jail, 328 F.3d 1026 (8th Cir. 2003) (pretrial detainees receive at least Eighth Amendment protections)
City of Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital, 463 U.S. 239 (pretrial detainee protection comparison)
Howard v. Adkison, 887 F.2d 134 (sanitation and hygiene rights of inmates)
Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (conditions depriving minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities violate Eighth Amendment)
Whitnack v. Douglas County, 16 F.3d 954 (deliberate indifference analysis and single human need requirement)
Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (conditions must produce deprivation of a basic human need)
Smith v. Coughlin, 748 F.2d 783 (mere discomfort from conditions does not violate the Constitution)