WEST v. HEAD, 5:17-cv-00089

Background

Plaintiff Jammie Maurice West, a Georgia prisoner at Riverbend Correctional Facility, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging pervasive mold, poor ventilation, unsanitary food/service conditions, deficient fire safety, contaminated water, and related illnesses since May 2014.
Plaintiff seeks OSHA investigation, payment of medical bills, and $100,000 in damages for physical and mental injuries he links to the facility conditions.
The Magistrate Judge conducted PLRA preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e), treating the complaint’s factual allegations as true for screening purposes.
The Court considered statute-of-limitations issues but assumed, for screening, that the conditions constituted a continuing violation and thus were not time-barred.
The Court recommended dismissal WITH PREJUDICE of any OSHA-based claim (no private right of action/standing) and recommended dismissal WITHOUT PREJUDICE of GEO Corporation for failure to allege GEO’s direct involvement or an unconstitutional policy or custom.
The Court found that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim against Warden Frederick Head—alleging objective severity (mold, ventilation, unsanitary conditions, fire-safety defects) and potential supervisory deliberate indifference—survives screening and ordered service on Warden Head for further development.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness / Statute of limitations	West alleges ongoing conditions since May 2014; complaint filed Feb 24, 2017; contends violations continued into limitations period	Defendants argue earlier incidents may be time-barred	Court assumed continuing violation at screening and did not dismiss on statute grounds
OSHA claim (private right/standing)	West requests OSHA investigation and relies on OSHA standards to challenge conditions	Defendants: prisoner is not an employer/employee or Sec. of Labor; OSHA provides no private right of action	OSHA-based claim dismissed WITH PREJUDICE (no standing/private right)
§ 1983 liability of GEO Corporation (private contractor)	West lists GEO/Warden Head; alleges facility-wide problems	Defendants (as analyzed): GEO liability not pleaded—no direct involvement or policy/custom alleged; respondeat superior not permitted	GEO dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to plead causal policy/custom or direct action
Eighth Amendment conditions claim against Warden Head	West alleges mold, bad ventilation, unsanitary conditions, fire-safety defects, and resulting illnesses—claims Warden Head is deliberately indifferent	Defendants: supervisory status alone insufficient; must show personal participation, causal link, policy/custom, or notice via widespread abuses	Court held Eighth Amendment claim survives screening as plausible: objective severity satisfied and plausible supervisory notice/widespread abuse inference adequate to proceed

Key Cases Cited

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement two-part analysis)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard requires knowledge of and disregard of substantial risk)
Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981) (Eighth Amendment governs prison conditions)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: conclusory allegations insufficient to state plausible claim)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolousness standard for prisoner pleadings)
Thigpen v. Bibb Cty., 223 F.3d 1231 (2000) (§ 1983 statute-of-limitations rule)
Jeter v. St. Regis Paper Co., 507 F.2d 973 (1975) (no private right of action under OSHA)
Buckner v. Toro, 116 F.3d 450 (11th Cir. 1997) (private contractor may be § 1983 defendant only if acting under color of state law and liability not vicarious)
Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2004) (discusses objective/severity and subjective/deliberate indifference standards for conditions claims)