Glеnn C. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY FOR the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, James McDonough, Secretary, Assistant Warden, B. Coleman, in his individual capacity, J.L. Gonzalez, Sgt., in his individual capacity, R.J. Perez, Sgt., in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-11933
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Oct. 24, 2007.
301
Non-Argument Calendar.
Glenn C. Smith, Indiantown, FL, pro se.
PER CURIAM:
Glenn Smith, a Florida state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court‘s dismissal of his pro se
In his complaint, Smith asserted that, on April 5, 2005, two prison employees led him to a converted utility vаn fitted with sheet metal benches, “after-market” seat belts, and no windows. When Smith stated that he would not ride in the van, voiced his specific safety concerns, and advised that he had been involved in a prеvious lawsuit regarding a similar van at another prison, the employees summoned the assistant warden, and the three physically forced Smith into the van. On the return trip, the two employees failed to fastеn Smith‘s seat belt, so that he was thrown around within the van, and his hip was aggravated. On April 7, 2005, Smith filed a grievance with the Florida Department of Corrections, which was denied. Smith later was forced to ride in the van agаin, on April 18, 2005. Smith alleged that transporting him in an unsafe van was unnecessary because he previously had been transported in a proper van and later learned that other inmates had been transported in proper vans.
In accordance with
As a preliminary matter, Smith‘s argument before the district court that the PLRA is unconstitutional is without merit. See Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1488-89 (11th Cir.1997) (holding that the filing fee requirement of
Also as a preliminary matter, the district court‘s apparent failure to construe Smith‘s supplemental pleadings as amendments to his complaint and to consider the arguments and evidence presented therein was not error. We have held that a district сourt does not abuse its discretion in denying a plaintiff‘s motion to amend his complaint when amendment would have
Pursuant to the PRLA, the complaint of a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis shall be dismissed at any time if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.
The complaint at issue in the instant appeal alleges a violation of
The Eighth Amendment governs the conditions under which convicted prisoners are confined and the treatment they receive while in prison. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1976, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). Although this amendment does not require comfortable prisons, it prohibits inhumane ones. Id. To show an Eighth Amendment violation, a prisoner must satisfy both an objective and a subjective inquiry.1 Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278, 1289-90 (11th Cir.2004). Under the objective component, while a prisoner “need not await a tragic event” before seeking relief, he must show a condition that is “extreme” and that “pose[s] an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his future health” or safety and “deprive[s] [him] of the minimal civilized measure of life‘s necessities.” Id. at 1289. Stated differently, the prisoner must show a condition with a risk that “today‘s society chooses [not] to tolerate.” Id. at 1290.
We previously have not exаmined whether transporting prisoners in converted utility vans poses the sort of risk required under the objective component. However, as persuasive authority, the Eighth Circuit, in Spencer v. Knapheide Truck Equipment Co., 183 F.3d 902, 904-06 (8th Cir.1999), addressed a case in which the plaintiff was forced to ride on a steel bench in a van without a seat belt or other safety restraint, eventually allowing him to be thrown forward and ultimately paralyzed, and held that the Police Boаrd‘s
The First Amendment protects inmates from retaliation for exercising their right to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances. Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1112 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 1908, 167 L.Ed.2d 568 (2007). This amendmеnt is violated when a prisoner is punished for filing a grievance concerning the conditions of his imprisonment. Id. To demonstrate such a violation, the prisoner must show that the punishment is causally related to his filing of a grievance. Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1248-49 (11th Cir.2003).
The record demonstrates that the district court did not err in dismissing Smith‘s complaint for failure to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Mitchell, 112 F.3d at 1490. Specifically, we are persuaded by the Eighth Cirсuit‘s precedent to hold that Smith has not satisfied the requisite objective component. See Chandler, 379 F.3d at 1289-90; Spencer, 183 F.3d at 904-06. If, as our sister circuit has held, riding on a steel bench without a seat belt is not a sufficient risk, then the condition complained of by Smith, namely, riding in a converted utility van on a steel bench and with a seat belt, also is insufficient. See Spencer, 183 F.3d at 904-06. Moreover, we cannot say that riding in a van equipped with the manufacturer‘s car seats, seat belts, and windows is a necessity, such that riding in a van without these characteristics is a deprivation of the minimal measure of life‘s necessities or is something that modern society would find intolerablе. See Chandler, 379 F.3d at 1289-90. Therefore, because Smith did not allege a sufficiently risky condition, we affirm the district court‘s dismissal insofar as he claims an Eighth Amendment violation.
The record also demonstrates that the district court did not err in dismissing Smith‘s complaint for failure to state a claim under the First Amendment. See Mitchell, 112 F.3d at 1490. Specifically, we hold that Smith has not shown that the defendants punished him by forcing him to ride in the van because of a grievanсe. See Boxer X, 437 F.3d at 1112. While we previously have not addressed whether the First Amendment also is violated when a prisoner shows that he was punished because he made oral complaints, we need not resolve this issue because Smith has failed to show that the defendants’ forcing him to ride in the van on April 5, 2005, was because he had voiced a complaint about the van‘s condition. See Farrow, 320 F.3d at 1248-49. Indeed, the evidenсe demonstrates that the defendants already were planning to put Smith in the van at the point when he made his complaints and only put him in the van in continuation of this prior plan. Smith also has not allegеd who forced him to ride in the van on April 18, 2005, and whether these parties knew of his April 7, 2005, written grievance. See id. Therefore, because Smith has not shown that he was retaliated against because he filed a grievance, we affirm the
AFFIRMED.