Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

CENTRAL DIVISION

JOSHUA CUMMINGS PLAINTIFF

ADC #172826

V. Case No. 4:24-CV-00506-JM-BBM

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, Cummins Unit;

GARY MUSSELWHITE, Warden,

DHO, Cummins Unit; ROBERT PIERCE,

Deputy, Assistant Warden, Cummins Unit;

LEWIS YOUNG, Warden of Operations,

Treatment Coor., Cummins Unit; and

JIMMY COLEMAN, Building Major/Chief

of Security, Cummins Unit DEFENDANTS

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to

United States District Judge James M. Moody Jr. You may file written objections to all or

part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain

the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this

Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Recommendation. If you do not file

objections, Judge Moody may adopt this Recommendation without independently

reviewing all of the evidence in the record. By not objecting, you may waive the right to

appeal questions of fact.

I. INTRODUCTION

On June 12, 2024, Plaintiff Joshua Cummings (“Cummings”), an inmate in the

Cummins Unit of the Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”), filed a pro se Complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 2). An Amended Complaint followed. (Doc. 21).

The Court conducted an initial screening of the Amended Complaint pursuant to the

Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)1 and noted several deficiencies. (Doc. 33).

Cummings was given leave to file a second amended complaint and placed on notice that

an amended pleading would supersede his previous Complaint. Id. at 7 (citing In re Atlas

Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 2000)).

Cummings failed to file a second amended complaint, and the time to do so has

passed. (Doc. 33 at 8). Accordingly, the Court will proceed with screening his operative

first Amended Complaint, (Doc. 21). 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

II. ALLEGATIONS

In his Amended Complaint, Cummings alleges that Defendants—Warden Gary

Musselwhite (“Musselwhite”), Assistant Warden Robert Pierce (“Pierce”), Warden of

Operations Lewis Young (“Young”), and Building Major and Chief of Security Jimmy

Coleman (“Coleman”)—violated his constitutional rights because he was exposed to

substandard living conditions in the Cummins Unit’s isolation cells. (Doc. 21).

1 The PLRA requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a

governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or a

portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b). When making this determination, the Court must accept the truth of the

factual allegations contained in the complaint, and it may consider the documents attached to the complaint.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Reynolds v. Dormire, 636 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2011).

Particularly, he complains of approximate month-long stays in the following isolation cells:

(1) South 1 in early 2023; (2) South 5 in early 2024; (3) North 17 from mid-May to late-

June 2024; and (4) East 17 around October 2024. Id. at 5–7.

South 1. While housed in South 1 in early 2023, Cummings was provided a “mat

and coverings.” (Doc. 21 at 6). However, the temperature was so cold that the bedding had

“NO EFFECT.” Id.

South 5. While housed in South 5 in early 2024, Cummings was only provided a

sleeping bag. (Doc. 21 at 6). Again, the temperature was extremely cold, and the air flowed

through the opening at the top of the sleeping bag. Id.

North 17. Cummings was housed in North 17 from mid-May to late June, during

the “hot months” of 2024. (Doc. 21 at 5). He was provided a black sleeping bag that

absorbed heat. Id. He slept on top of the sleeping bag but would still wake up drenched in

sweat. Id.

North 17 also had a jammed cell door. (Doc. 21 at 5). An officer would have to kick

the door from the outside, then Cummings would have to kick the door from the inside

several times before he could exit. Id. Cummings tried to grieve the jammed-door issue in

July 2024, but his grievance was denied as untimely by non-Defendant Chief Deputy

Director Reed. Id.

East 17. Cummings’s East 17 cell had rusted and jagged metal around the “bean

hole.” (Doc. 21 at 6). Cummings complained to multiple officers about the issue, but

nothing was done until Cummings injured himself. Id. at 6–7. On that day, Cummings

caught his right middle finger on the “burred metal” while reaching for his breakfast tray.

Id. at 6. It left a deep gash. Id.

A nurse and several officers told Cummings to put some soap and water on his cut

and that it would not kill him. (Doc. 21 at 6). So, Cummings was forced to nurse the injury

himself. Id. His finger swelled up and developed pus. Id. The wound leaked “green,

yellowish, and clear fluids, with a black tint within.” Id. at 7. Cummings drained and

cleaned the wound for two-and-a-half weeks before it started to heal. Id.

Cummings filed three grievances about the jagged metal and the resulting injury.

(Doc. 21 at 7). But he only received a response to one, and that grievance response was

brought to his cell by another inmate. Id. After that grievance, a work order was completed

on the jagged metal. Id.

Conditions Common to All Isolation Cells. In addition to the extreme temperatures

and jagged metal, Cummings claims that all Cummins’s isolation cells are hazardous. (Doc.

21 at 4). Specifically, the isolation cells all lack hot water unless the showers are running.

Id. They also lack ventilation, air circulation, insulation, and a sprinkler system. Id.

Hallway Conditions. The vents in the hallway remain constantly open, so “outside

air + toxins” get inside, such as the feces in the manure that is spread on the fields outside.

(Doc. 21 at 4–5). There is a bubbly, white, sulfuric-smelling substance right under the

vents. Id. at 5. And, when it rains heavily, the halls flood with filthy water. Id.

Cummings does not name any of the previously mentioned officers or nurses—

whom Cummings directly interacted with—as Defendants to this action. Instead, he names

the Warden, Assistant Warden, Warden of Operations, and Building Major/Chief of

Security. (Doc. 21 at 1–2). He claims these supervisory officials—Musselwhite, Pierce,

Young, and Coleman, respectively—see the substandard and hazardous conditions first-

hand when making rounds every Sunday. Id. at 8. Although Cummings is no longer in

isolation, he complains that Defendants still house inmates in the conditions of which he

complains. Id.

Cummings sues Defendants in their individual capacities only. (Doc. 21 at 2). He

seeks monetary damages. Id. at 9.

III. SCREENING

To survive pre-service screening under the PLRA, a “complaint must contain

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “[L]abels and conclusions,” a

“formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action,” and “naked assertions devoid

of further factual enhancement” are insufficient to plead a plausible claim. Id. Further,

“[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citation omitted). However, “[a] pro

se complaint must be liberally construed,” and courts “should construe the complaint in a

way that permits the layperson’s claim to be considered within the proper legal

framework.” Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 849 (8th Cir. 2014)

(cleaned up; citations omitted); Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015)

(citation omitted).

Cummings purports to bring conditions-of-confinement claims against the

supervisory Defendants. The Court also construes a medical-deliberate-indifference claim

from Cummings’s allegations.

A. Conditions of Confinement

Because Cummings was a convicted prisoner at the time of the alleged conduct,

(Doc. 2 at 3), his conditions claim falls under the Eighth Amendment. See Stearns v. Inmate

Servs. Corp., 957 F.3d 902, 906 (8th Cir. 2020). To establish a conditions-of-confinement

claim under the Eighth Amendment, Cummings “must demonstrate (1) that the alleged

deprivation was objectively, sufficiently serious enough to result in the denial of the

minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities, and (2) that the prison official whose action

or omission caused the deprivation behaved with deliberate indifference to inmate health

or safety.” Hamner v. Burls, 937 F.3d 1171, 1178 (8th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up).

Additionally, Cummings must show he suffered an “injury or adverse health consequence[]

as a result of his confinement.” Seltzer-Bey v. Delo, 66 F.3d 961, 964 (8th Cir. 1995).

Cummings alleges he was subject to extreme cold and extreme heat, unsanitary

conditions, and hazardous conditions. Thus, Cummings has pleaded that he has variously

been deprived of a “life necessity”—a designation reserved for things such as food,

warmth, exercise, hygiene, and safety. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991);

Thomas-El v. Francis, 99 F.4th 1115, 1117–18 (8th Cir. 2024). However, save for

Cummings’s finger injury in East 17, Cummings fails to allege any injury or adverse health

consequence from his stays in isolation.

Moreover, Cummings’s allegation that Defendants “see the condemness [sic]

firsthand when they make their Sunday rounds,” (Doc. 21 at 8), falls short of showing that

any Defendant was deliberately indifferent to Cummings’s health and safety. To show

deliberate indifference, Cummings must allege facts showing that Defendants “recognized

that a substantial risk of harm existed and knew that their conduct was inappropriate in

light of that risk.” Letterman v. Does, 789 F.3d 856, 862 (8th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).

There are simply no allegations showing any Defendant was personally aware that

Cummings was subject to: extreme cold in early 2023 and early 2024; extreme heat and a

jammed door from mid-May to late June 2024; a rusted and jagged bean hole around

October 2024; or any of those other conditions of which he complains. At most,

Cummings’s allegation that Defendants made “Sunday rounds” shows that Defendants

should have been aware of the conditions of which Cummings complains. But this amounts

to negligence, not deliberate indifference. Wilson, 501 U.S. at 305 (1991); see also Joseph

v. Wheeler, 144 F.4th 1111, 1115 (8th Cir. 2025) (“Our caselaw just doesn’t clearly

establish that a supervisor who is aware of potential safety issues but fails to ameliorate

them can be deemed to be deliberately indifferent.”). Thus, the allegations are far too broad

and vague to state a constitutional claim for relief against the named Defendants. It is,

therefore, recommended that Cummings’s conditions-of-confinement claims be dismissed

without prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief.

B. Medical Deliberate Indifference

In order to state a claim based on medical deliberate indifference, Cummings must

allege facts showing: (1) he had an objectively serious medical need; and (2) Defendants

knew of but deliberately disregarded that need. Cannon v. Dehner, 112 F.4th 580, 586 (8th

Cir. 2024). Cummings alleges that he injured his finger on the bean hole and that his finger

was swollen and leaking fluid, but a nurse and several officers merely told him to put water

and soap on it. (Doc. 21 at 6). However, Cummings does not name the nurse or any of

those officers as Defendants to this action and, accordingly, does not state a viable medical-

deliberate-indifference claim.

IV. CONCLUSION

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Cummings’s Amended Complaint, (Doc. 21), be DISMISSED without

prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

2. The Court RECOMMEND that the dismissal count as a “strike” for the

purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

3. The Court CERTIFY, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma

pauperis appeal from any Order adopting this Recommendation would not be taken in good

faith.

DATED this 20th day of October, 2025.

Rance’ a Uorve-

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE