Pitts v. Sheriff Tim Helder, No. 5:2022cv05010 - Document 37 (W.D. Ark. 2023)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER adopting 35 Report and Recommendations IN ITS ENTIRETY; GRANTING 24 Motion for Summary Judgment. (See Order for Specifics) Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on February 17, 2023. (lgd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pitts v. Sheriff Tim Helder Doc. 37 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION CORA LEE PITTS V. PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 5:22-CV-5010 SHERIFF TIM HELDER, Washington County, Arkansas DEFENDANT OPINION AND ORDER Comes on for consideration the Report and Recommendation (''R&R") (Doc. 35) filed in this case on January 31, 2023, by the Honorable Mark E. Ford , United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendant Sheriff Tim Helder's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 24). Plaintiff Cora Lee Pitts sued Sheriff Helder in his official capacity for allegedly subjecting her to unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Pitts filed objections to the R&R. See Doc. 36 . On February 8, 2023 , Ms. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1 ), the Court has reviewed the record de novo in order to resolve the pending objections. Ms. Pitts's claim concerns her confinement in an isolation cell for three days. She agrees that at the time she was engaging in acts of self-harm and was openly threatening to kill herself. See Doc. 26-7, pp. 44--45. isolation cell called "ISO-3." In response , jail officials placed her in an The conditions in the isolation cell were bleak. The room was small and only contained a bed. There was no sink or toilet; there was only a hole on the floor of the cell , covered by a grate. The hole was meant to be used as a toilet and could be flushed by jail officers from a location outside the cell. Ms. Pitts took her 1 Dockets.Justia.com meals in the cell and was under video observation at all times. She was released from the cell for one hour per day for exercise and was permitted at that time to use the shower, sink, and toilet, as well as the jail's electronic kiosk. Ms. Pitts describes her confinement in IS0-3 as a "form of torture" that only worsened her mental state. Id. at pp . 63-64. However, after spending three days in isolation, she spoke with the jail's nurse and agreed to resume taking her medications. She was placed in a segregated unit, where she remained for two weeks. After that, she rejoined general population . Ms. Pitts's first group of objections seek to clarify some of the facts in the R&R. 1 None of these facts are material to the recommended ruling on summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court believes these objections do not warrant a ruling . To the extent some ruling is required, the objections are OVERRULED. Ms. Pitts's second objection emphasizes the unhygienic conditions she experienced in IS0-3 and contends these conditions were so intolerable that they violated her constitutional rights. The R&R acknowledges that "the conditions in IS0-3, as described by Pitts, were unpleasant, undesirable, and harsh." (Doc. 35 , p. 10). However, a Fourteenth Amendment claim may only survive summary judgment if there are facts to show that conditions of confinement amounted to punishment. First, there are no facts to show that Ms. Pitts's jailers openly expressed a desire to punish her. Therefore, the Court must examine whether her conditions of confinement 1 In particular, Ms. Pitts notes that: (1) she was administered "Risperidone" in jail but believes she should have been given "Zyprexa" instead ; (2) she never posed a danger to her fellow prisoners , though she understands why her "behaviors may have caused concern to others"; and (3) she disputes the R&R's characterization of her mental health conditions as "serious." (Doc. 36, p. 1 (emphasis in original)). 2 could nonetheless be construed as punishment. To accomplish this, the Court considers where the conditions were "reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective" or instead were "arbitrary and purposeless. " See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 , 538-39 (1979) . Here, there is no genuine, material dispute that placing Ms. Pitts in an isolation cell for observation was reasonably related to the jail's legitimate penological interest in keeping her from harming herself. The more difficult question is whether the physical conditions in the isolation cell were reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. As stated, Washington County's policy is to keep its isolation cells bare. This means the cells only contain beds and do not contain toilets, sinks, or metal furnishings. The County explains that the purpose of this rule is to reduce the chances that inmates will use furnishings to injure themselves. See Doc. 26-1, p. 4. Ms. Pitts complains that the lack of sink in her cell meant she could not wash her hands before taking meals and after relieving herself in the hole in the floor of her cell. She agrees she was released from this cell for one hour per day to shower, use the restroom , and use the kiosk. (Doc. 26-7, p. 24). She recalls that on at least one occasion, her cell was swept and mopped and guards flushed the hole. night. Id. at p. 58. Id. at p. 25. She claims she was without toilet paper for a She also noticed there was fecal matter "on the wall or the door," but she did not report this to an officer because she was "so in [her] own world and [her] own spaced out head ." Id. at pp. 58-59 . The Court agrees with the R&R that the above conditions described by Ms. Pitt did not violate her constitutional rights under existing case law. 3 Denying her the opportunity to wash her hands after using the bathroom or before eating meals was unsanitary, as was the presence of fecal matter on the wall or door of her cell. However, "the length of time a prisoner is subjected to harsh conditions is a critical factor in [the Court's] analysis. " Smith v. Copeland, 87 F.3d 265, 269 (8th Cir. 1996). Ms. Pitts's incarceration under these unsanitary conditions lasted only three days, and she does not claim she was exposed to disease or suffered any resulting health effects. As a matter of law, enduring such conditions for this length of time does not amount to a constitutional violation . See, e.g. , Smith, 87 F.3d at 269 (finding no constitutional violation when a pretrial detainee was forced to endure raw sewage from an overflowing toilet in his isolation cell for four days). Accordingly, this objection is OVERRULED. Now having overruled all pending objections, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 24) is GRANTED. Judgment will be entered simultaneously with this Order. ~ IT IS SO ORDERED on this ~ day of Febru ICT JUDGE 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
