Stephen Ham v. Kathleen Anderson

2014 DNH 105

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: May 8, 2014
• Docket: 14-CV-135-SM
• Status: Published

Opinion

Stephen Ham v. Kathleen Anderson 14-CV-135-SM 5/8/14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Stephen Ham

v. Case No. 14-cv-135-SM Opinion No. 2014 DNH 105

Kathleen Anderson, et al.

O R D E R

Stephen Ham, a prisoner at the New Hampshire State Prison,

has filed a complaint (doc. no. 1) alleging that prison

conditions in his cell created a hazard and caused him injury,

and that he received inadequate medical care for his serious

injury, in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment of

the United States Constitution, and state tort law. The matter

is before the court for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a).

Standard

In determining whether a pro se pleading states a claim, the

court construes the pleading liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus,

551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Disregarding any legal conclusions, the

court considers whether the factual content in the pleading and

inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, taken as true, state a

facially plausible claim to relief. Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91, 102-03 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).

Background

On November 28, 2013, Sgt. Duprey of the New Hampshire State

Prison placed Ham in a cell with a broken bed frame. The damage

to the frame created two sharp edges on the frame, where one

would ordinarily get on and off the bed. On December 1 or 2,

2013, Ham scratched his leg on one of the sharp edges. Medical

personnel cleaned and bandaged his cut at the infirmary and Ham

returned to his cell. After the incident, Corrections Officer

Joseph O’Brian wrote an incident report concerning Ham’s injury

and cell conditions.

On December 9, 2013, Ham again cut himself on one of the

sharp metal edges, and received a 3½-inch long laceration that

bled heavily. Ham was treated by several people at the prison

infirmary. NHSP medical personnel decided to close Ham’s

laceration with a “glue medical bond.” Ham alleges that thirty

minutes after the glue was applied, his cut started to reopen,

and he returned to the infirmary to have his cut taped closed and

rebandaged. Ham alleges that he has a sizeable scar on his leg

where he was cut. Ham also alleges that after his injury, a

corrections official moved him to a different cell.

2 Discussion

I. Eighth Amendment Claims

A. Cell Condition

Ham alleges that defendants knowingly housed him in a cell

that, due to the exposed sharp metal edge on his bedframe,

subjected him to an unreasonable risk of harm. The constitution

requires prison officials to take “reasonable measures to

guarantee the safety of the inmates.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511

U.S. 825, 832-33. To establish unconstitutional endangerment, an

inmate must assert facts to demonstrate that, objectively, he was

incarcerated “under conditions posing a substantial risk of

serious harm,” and that the involved prison officials knew of and

disregarded the excessive risk to the inmate’s safety. Id. at

834.

Ham alleges generally that defendants were aware of the

dangerous condition in his cell but failed to remedy the hazard,

resulting in Ham’s continued exposure to the sharp edge that

caused his more serious injury. However, Ham has not alleged

facts to show that defendants Kathleen Anderson, the Unit Manager

on Ham’s unit, Sgt. Duprey, the officer who initially placed Ham

in the cell in question, and Lisa Savage, the medical care

provider who treated Ham after his second injury, had any

knowledge of the sharp edges and the risk of harm, and failed to

3 take reasonable steps to correct it. Ham does state that

Corrections Officer Joseph O’Brian was aware of the first injury

and thus the risk that Ham was subject to future injury. Ham

also states that O’Brian responded to the situation by writing an

incident report concerning Ham’s injury and cell conditions. The

court cannot therefore infer that O’Brian disregarded a risk to

Ham’s safety, or that O’Brian failed to respond to the situation

in a reasonable manner. Ham has failed to plead any facts that

show that any defendant acted with deliberate indifference in

disregarding a known risk to Ham’s safety, and Ham has thus

failed to assert a claim that his Eighth Amendment rights were

violated, relative to his cell conditions.

B. Medical Care

Ham complains that the use of a glue bond that failed to

hold violated his Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical

care. Nothing in the complaint indicates, however, that Ham’s

medical care was inadequate, or that any defendant was

deliberately indifferent to any substantial risk of harm. Ham

alleges that each time he was injured, he received prompt medical

attention and treatment. Ham has thus failed to state any claim

asserting an unconstitutional deprivation of adequate medical

care.

4 II. State Law Claims

Ham alleges that the defendants’ acts which form the basis

of his asserted Eighth Amendment claims also constitute

negligence under state law. Because Ham has failed to state any

federal claim for relief, the court declines to exercise its

supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See

28 U.S.C. § 1367. Nothing in this order prevents Ham from

litigating his negligence claims in the state courts.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that Ham has

failed to state a federal constitutional claim upon which relief

may be granted, and is therefore subject to dismissal under

§ 1915A(a). Accordingly, Ham is granted leave to file an amended

complaint within thirty days of the date of this order, stating

plausible federal claims arising out of the facts alleged. If

Ham fails to comply with this order, this action will be

dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a plausible

federal claim, and the state claims will be dismissed without

prejudice to refiling in state court.

5 SO ORDERED.

____________________________ Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

May 8, 2014

cc: Stephen Ham, pro se SM:jba