Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Day v. Vaughn

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Statesboro Division

October 22, 2014

HOWARD JOSEPH DAY, Plaintiff,
v.
KENNETH VAUGHN and JAMES SPRINGER, in their individual capacities, Defendants

Page 1378

For Howard Joseph Day, Plaintiff: James Wrixam McIlvaine, LEAD ATTORNEY, McIlvaine Law Group, LLC, Brunswick, GA.

For Kenneth Vaughn, In his individual capacity, James Springer, In his individual capacity, Defendants: Michelle J. Hirsch, LEAD ATTORNEY, Dept. of Law, GA Attorney General's Office, Atlanta, GA.

Page 1379

ORDER

B. AVANT EDENFIELD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Howard Joseph Day brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Kenneth Vaughn and James Springer (" Defendants" ) for alleged violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. ECF No. 1. Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint arguing that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (" PLRA" ) bars Plaintiff's claims, that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and, alternatively, that they are entitled to qualified immunity. ECF No. 7-1 at 4, 14, 21.

Because the Court agrees that the PLRA bars Plaintiff's claims in this case, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

II. BACKGROUND

At the time Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this case, he was incarcerated in Baldwin State Prison. ECF No. 1 at 2. His Complaint alleges that, during a previous incarceration, Defendants improperly transferred him from Probation Residential Substance Abuse Program to Emanuel Probation Detention Center (" PDC" ). Id. at 3. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants detained him at PDC from April 1, 2012, until November 13, 2012, without lawful authority, thus violating his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under color of state law. Id. at 5.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In considering a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion, all facts in the plaintiff's complaint " are to be accepted as true and the court limits its consideration to the pleadings and exhibits attached thereto." GSW, Inc. v. Long Cnty., Ga., 999 F.2d 1508, 1510 (11th Cir. 1993). The Court, however, is not limited to the four comers of the pleadings; rather a proper review of a motion to dismiss " requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

A complaint will not be dismissed so long as it contains factual allegations sufficient " to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell A. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (claim must have " facial plausibility" ); Edwards v. Prime, Inc.,

Page 1380

602 F.3d 1276, 1291 (11th Cir. 2010). Yet, " a plaintiff's obligation to provide 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.