Law v. Ambrose et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOSHUA ROBERT LAW,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CORY AMBROSE, Corporal, South
Dakota Department of Corrections, in
his individual and official capacities;
CAPTAIN VANDERAA, Officer in Charge
Captain, South Dakota Department of
Corrections, in his individual and
official capacities; OIC ROWHER,
Officer in Charge, South Dakota
Department of Corrections, in his
individual and official capacities; OIC
VAN DEN TOP, Officer in Charge, South
Dakota Department of Corrections, in
his individual and official capacities,
Defendants.
4:21-CV-04187-KES
1915A SCREENING
Plaintiff, Joshua Robert Law, an inmate at the South Dakota State
Penitentiary, filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Docket
1. Law timely paid his filing fee on November 22, 2021. This court will now
screen Law’s amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
I. 	1915A Screening
A. 	Factual Background
The facts alleged in Law’s complaint are: that on August 30, 2021, he
was locked in a solitary cell without clothing or water. Docket 4 at 8, 13. He
claims he was in the identification room of the G. Norton Jameson Annex at the
Case 4:21-cv-04187-KES Document 5 Filed 01/27/22 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>

2
South Dakota State Penitentiary for 22 hours, where he was forced to stay
approximately five feet from a non-flushable toilet. Id. In an informal resolution
request included in his complaint, Law alleges that this occurred because a
body scan performed at 10:15 AM showed abnormal results. Id. at 16. He
alleges that the cell did not have running water, a flushable toilet, or
ventilation. Id. at 8. He also alleges that Cory Ambrose took his clothing,
leaving him naked in the cell. Id. He claims that Ambrose instructed him to
produce three bowel movements into a small white container before he could
leave. Id.
Law alleges that he produced a bowel movement at approximately 11:00
AM, at which point he notified C.O. Kumi. Id. at 9. He alleges that the bowel
movement was inspected and removed from the cell by Captain Vanderaa at
approximately 1:30 PM and that he informed Captain Vanderaa that he was
ready to produce a second bowel movement. Id. at 9. Law claims that he
produced a second bowel movement at approximately 1:40 PM. Id. He also
claims that multiple parole officers entered the room where his cell was located
from 2 PM to 5 PM to bring individuals in for detainment and that some of
these officers were female. Id. at 10. He alleges that he recognized parole officer
Kayla Oelkers, who he believes saw and recognized him. Id. He also alleges that
he notified C.O. Green of his second bowel movement at approximately 2:45 PM
and an unidentified correctional officer at approximately 4:45 PM. Id. at 10-11.
He claims that OIC Rowher inspected the second bowel movement at
Case 4:21-cv-04187-KES Document 5 Filed 01/27/22 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>

3
approximately 6:30 PM and disposed of it in the non-flushable toilet in the cell.
Id. at 11.
Law claims that he produced a third bowel movement at approximately
6:45 PM. Id. He also claims that he informed OIC Rowher of this at
approximately 7:40 PM and that he also told OIC Rowher of the flies that were
landing on him, his feces, and the two sack lunch bags and trash that were in
the room from the meals he had been given. Id. at 11. He alleges that OIC
Rowher returned with OIC Van Den Top at approximately 9:10 PM, at which
point OIC Van Den Top inspected the third bowel movement and disposed of it
in the non-flushable toilet. Id. at 12. He also alleges that OIC Rowher informed
him that he would have to produce a fourth bowel movement before he could
leave the cell. Id. He claims that he produced this bowel movement at
approximately 9:00 AM the following morning. Id. Law claims that he was
provided a DOC jumpsuit at approximately 9:30 AM and allowed to return to
his normal penitentiary housing. Id. He also claims that he spoke with Tyler
Johnson, a behavioral health counselor with the DOH, about the psychological
trauma, mental anguish, and humiliation caused by this experience. Id. at 7.
Law brings claims against Ambrose, Captain Vanderaa, OIC Rowher, and
OIC Van Den Top in their individual and official capacities. Id. at 3-4. He
claims that the conditions violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Id. at 6. He
seeks $6,000 in punitive damages per defendant per hour he was in the cell,
which totals $528,000. Id. at 7.
Case 4:21-cv-04187-KES Document 5 Filed 01/27/22 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>

4
B. 	Legal Background
The court must assume as true all facts well pleaded in the complaint.
Estate of Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 36 (8th Cir. 1995). Pro se and civil
rights complaints must be liberally construed. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007); Bediako v. Stein Mart, Inc., 354 F.3d 835, 839 (8th Cir. 2004). Even
with this construction, “a pro se complaint must contain specific facts
supporting its conclusions.” Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir.
1985); see also Ellis v. City of Minneapolis, 518 F. App’x 502, 504 (8th Cir.
2013). Civil rights complaints cannot be merely conclusory. Davis v. Hall, 992
F.2d 151, 152 (8th Cir. 1993); Parker v. Porter, 221 F. App’x 481, 482 (8th Cir.
2007).
A complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations . . . [but] requires
more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of
a cause of action will not do[.]” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) (internal citations omitted). If it does not contain these bare essentials,
dismissal is appropriate. Beavers v. Lockhart, 755 F.2d 657, 663 (8th Cir.
1985). Twombly requires that a complaint’s “[f]actual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . on the
assumption that all of the allegations in the complaint are true[.]” Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555 (internal citation omitted); see also Abdullah v. Minnesota, 261
F. App’x 926, 927 (8th Cir. 2008) (noting that a “complaint must contain either
direct or inferential allegations respecting all material elements necessary to
sustain recovery under some viable legal theory”). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
Case 4:21-cv-04187-KES Document 5 Filed 01/27/22 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>

5
the court must screen prisoner complaints and dismiss them if they “(1) [are]
frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted;
or (2) seek[] monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
C. 	Legal Analysis
1. 	Official Capacity Claims
Law brings claims against all individual defendants in their official
capacities. Docket 4 at 3-4. All individual defendants are employees of the state
of South Dakota. See id. “[A] suit against a state official in his or her official
capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the
official's office.” Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (citing
Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 471 (1985)). Thus, it is a suit against the state
itself. Although “[§] 1983 provides a federal forum to remedy many deprivations
of civil liberties, . . . it does not provide a federal forum for litigants who seek a
remedy against a State for alleged deprivations of civil liberties.” Id. at 66.
The Eleventh Amendment generally acts as a bar to suits against a state
for money damages unless the state has waived its sovereign immunity. Id.
Here, Law seeks money damages. The state of South Dakota has not waived its
sovereign immunity. Thus, Law’s claims against all individual defendants in
their official capacities are dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii) and 1915A(b)(1)-(2).
Case 4:21-cv-04187-KES Document 5 Filed 01/27/22 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>

6
2. 	Individual Capacity Claims
“Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff
must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own
individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 676 (2009).
Thus, each Government official . . . is only liable for his or her own
misconduct. As we have held, a supervising officer can be liable for
an 	inferior 	officer's 	constitutional 	violation 	only 	if 	he 	directly
participated in the constitutional violation, or if his failure to train
or supervise the offending actor caused the deprivation.
Parrish v. Ball, 594 F.3d 993, 1001 (8th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up). Law’s
individual capacity claims must allege that each individual defendant either
participated in the unconstitutional conduct or caused the conduct to occur
through a failure to train or supervise the offending actor.
Law brings claims against all defendants in their individual capacities for
violating his Eighth Amendment rights. Docket 4 at 3-4. Construing his
complaint liberally, Law claims that the conditions of his confinement violated
his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
See id. at 6-13. “[T]he Constitution ‘does not mandate comfortable prisons’; it
prohibits ‘inhumane ones.’ ” Williams v. Delo, 49 F.3d 442, 445 (8th Cir. 1995)
(quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994)). The United States
Supreme Court has clarified that only “extreme deprivations” that deny “the
minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities are sufficiently grave to form the
basis of an Eighth Amendment violation.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9
(1992) (citation and internal quotation omitted). The Supreme Court has listed
Case 4:21-cv-04187-KES Document 5 Filed 01/27/22 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>

7
as basic human needs “food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable
safety[.]” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32 (1993) (internal quotation
omitted). In order to prevail on an Eighth Amendment conditions of
confinement claim, a prisoner must prove that: (1) objectively, the deprivation
was sufficiently serious to deprive him of the minimal civilized measures of
life's necessities, or to constitute a substantial risk of serious harm to his
health or safety; and (2) subjectively, the defendants were deliberately
indifferent to the risk of harm posed by the deprivation. Simmons v. Cook, 154
F.3d 805, 807 (8th Cir. 1998) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834). An Eighth
Amendment challenge to conditions of confinement must examine the totality
of the circumstances. Villanueva v. George, 659 F.2d 851, 854 (8th Cir. 1981).
Law alleges sufficient facts to state a claim for conditions of confinement
in violation of his Eight Amendment rights. Although the deprivation was only
for 22 hours, Law was denied clothing and water and was forced to stay in
inhumane conditions. Although this deprivation was in response to an
abnormal scan and may have been justified by the totality of the circumstances
under Villanueva, the court cannot ascertain defendants’ reasons for the
deprivation at this phase. Law also alleges that all four defendants were aware
of and directly participated in the constitutional violation. Thus, Law’s
conditions of confinement claims against Ambrose, Captain Vanderaa, OIC
Rowher, and OIC Van Den Top survive § 1915A screening.
Thus, it is ORDERED:
Case 4:21-cv-04187-KES Document 5 Filed 01/27/22 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>

8
1. 	That Law’s claims against all defendants in their official capacities
are dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-
(iii) and 1915A(b)(1)-(2).
2. 	That Law’s Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims
against Cory Ambrose, Captain Vanderaa, OIC Rowher, and OIC
Van 	Den 	Top 	in 	their 	individual 	capacities 	survive 	§ 	1915A
screening.
3. 	That the Clerk shall send blank summons forms and Marshal Service
Form (Form USM-285) to Law so that he may cause the complaint to
be served upon defendants Ambrose, Captain Vanderaa, OIC Rowher,
and OIC Van Den Top.
4. 	That Law shall complete and send the Clerk of Court a separate
summons and USM-285 form for defendants Ambrose, Captain
Vanderaa, OIC Rowher, and OIC Van Den Top. Upon receipt of the
completed summons and USM-285 forms, the Clerk of Court will
issue the summons. If the completed summons and USM-285 form
are not submitted as directed, the complaint may be dismissed.
5. 	The 	United 	States 	Marshal 	Service 	shall 	serve 	the 	completed
summonses, together with a copy of the amended complaint (Docket
4) and this order, upon defendants Ambrose, Captain Vanderaa, OIC
Rowher, and OIC Van Den Top.
6. 	Defendants Ambrose, Captain Vanderaa, OIC Rowher, and OIC Van
Den Top will serve and file an answer or responsive pleading to the
Case 4:21-cv-04187-KES Document 5 Filed 01/27/22 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>

9
complaint on or before 21 days following the date of service or 60
days if the defendants fall under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(2) or (3).
7. 	Law will keep the court informed of his current address at all times.
All parties are bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and by
the court’s Local Rules while this case is pending.
Dated January 27, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:21-cv-04187-KES Document 5 Filed 01/27/22 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>