United States District Court, D. Maryland
L. Russell, III United States District Judge.
MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Donte Michael
Jackson’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis. (ECF No. 2). Because Jackson appears indigent, the
Court will grant his Motion. For the reasons that follow,
however, the Court will dismiss Jackson’s Complaint.
3, 2016, Jackson filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2012) Complaint, seeking $25, 000 in damages and a transfer
from his place of confinement, the Eastern Correctional
Institution (“ECI”). (ECF No. 1). In his suit,
against ECI Warden Kathleen S. Green, Jackson alleges he was
denied a shower on Monday, May 9, 2016 because his cell was
not in compliance with the “Rule Book.”
(Id. at 4). Jackson had been without a shower for
the preceding three days, and there were no showers on
Tuesdays. Jackson, therefore, went without a shower for five
consecutive days, which he contends was “not
Jackson seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must
screen his complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a); see
McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d 391, 394 (4th Cir.
2009). Before permitting the case to move forward or
requiring a response from Green, “the court shall
identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any
portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
Court understands that sanitation and hygiene are major
concerns in prison and that a total of five days without a
shower might have been unpleasant for Jackson. But to the
extent Jackson is arguing that this one-time denial of a
shower violated his Eighth Amendment rights, his claim fails
as a matter of law.
establish the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment, a
prisoner must prove two elements-that the deprivation of [a]
basic human need was objectively ‘sufficiently serious,
’ and that “subjectively ‘the officials
act[ed] with a sufficiently culpable state of
mind.’” Shakka v. Smith, 71 F.3d 162,
166 (4th Cir. 1995) (quoting Strickler v. Waters,
989 F.2d 1375, 1379 (4th Cir. 1993)). Jackson does not allege
a “sufficiently serious” deprivation. As
Shakka illustrates, opportunities to shower can be
more severely reduced without violating a prisoner's
constitutional rights. 71 F.3d at 167-68 (rejecting
inmate’s claim that preventing him from showering for
three days after having human excrement thrown on him
constituted cruel and unusual punishment where the inmate
acknowledged “he was provided with water and cleaning
materials with which to clean himself and his cell
immediately after informing prison officials of the
alleges a correctional officer denied him a shower one day
for a cell rules violation, contributing to a total of five
consecutive days without a shower. He does not allege the
denial of showers was a frequent occurrence or part of a
longer-term policy. In cases featuring such allegations,
courts have held that affording general population inmates
two showers per week meets the constitutional minimum.
See Walker v. Mintzes, 771 F.2d 920, 928 (6th Cir.
1985); Preston v. Thompson, 589 F.2d 300 (7th Cir.
1978). Courts have affirmed even greater limits on
showers as punishment for in-prison violations such as
rioting. See Davenport v. DeRobertis, 844 F.2d 1310,
1316-17 (7th Cir.1988) (holding that allowing inmates only
one shower per week did not violate constitutional rights).
Jackson also does not allege that he had a medical condition
that was exacerbated by the denial of the shower over the
cumulative five-day period or that he was without materials
to otherwise clean himself. See Shakka, 71 F.3d at
166-68; see also Walker v. Bowersox, 526
F.3d 1186, 1189 (8th Cir. 2008) (finding triable Eighth
Amendment issue where prisoner was barred from showering or
changing for three days after pepper spray incident). Jackson
also does not allege the second element of an Eighth
Amendment violation. He not only admits he violated
ECI’s cell rules but also fails to allege the
correctional officer or Green acted with a sufficiently
culpable state of mind. The Court finds, therefore, that
Jackson has failed to allege he experienced an injury from
this isolated denial, and his Complaint for damages may not
reasons stated above, the Court will GRANT Jackson’s
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and DISMISS
Jackson’s Complaint. A separate order follows.
 Although Jackson’s case does not
state a constitutional claim, the dismissal does not
constitute a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e) and should not be ...