United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Dublin Division
K. EPPS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
currently incarcerated at Telfair State Prison
(“TSP”) in Helena, Georgia, commenced the
above-captioned case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Because he is proceeding IFP, Plaintiff's amended
complaint must be screened to protect potential defendants.
Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 785 (11th Cir.
1984); Al-Amin v. Donald, 165 F. App'x 733, 736
(11th Cir. 2006).
SCREENING OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
names as Defendants (1) John Watts, Tier II Officer in
Charge; (2) Barbara Grant, Unit Manager; and (3) Beasley,
Lieutenant. (Doc. no. 1, pp. 1, 8.) Taking all of
Plaintiff's factual allegations as true, as the Court
must for purposes of the present screening, the facts are as
10, 2017, Plaintiff was transferred to Augusta State Medical
Prison (“ASMP”) to examine what had been
diagnosed as a pinched nerve. (Id. at 5.) Two ASMP
doctors ran several tests, including shocking his veins with
two prongs of a rectangular device and inserting a needle
into various places on his left arm and neck. (Id.
at 8.) After a considerable amount of time, Plaintiff was
transferred back to TSP. (Id. at 9.)
first transferred to TSP, Plaintiff was housed in Tier II
Unit E-2. (Id.) While there, he heard various
threats and references to assaults regarding the F-building.
(Id.) In particular, Plaintiff was told by fellow
inmates “Wait until we get back to F-building, we gone
have plenty of yard, ” and “we don't have to
keep talking, we'll see once we get on the yard in
F-building.” (Id.) When Plaintiff was
transferred to F-1 building, Plaintiff was afraid to go
outside for recreation because of the aforementioned threats
and the compromised nature of the recreation yard.
(Id.) Inmates regularly pick the locks on the cages
in the yard and assault fellow inmates, which has caught the
attention of guards on three to four different occasions.
(Id.) Because of these dangerous conditions,
Plaintiff has not ventured outside of his cell for recreation
in 170 days. (Id. at 10.)
March 30, 2017, Plaintiff appealed his Phase Three plus
extension to remain housed in Tier II, but to date has not
received a decision regarding this appeal. (Id.)
Plaintiff also appealed his March 20, 2017 Phase hearing, but
has not received a decision regarding that appeal either.
(Id. at 11.) However, Plaintiff attaches a reviewed
appeal form in which Warden Hall “concur[s] with
committee” regarding Plaintiff's phase
classification. (Id. at 14.)
2, 2017, Plaintiff received two disciplinary reports.
(Id. at 11.) Defendant Beasley held a disciplinary
hearing regarding these reports on June 20, 2017, during
which Plaintiff informed him of several deficiencies in the
hearing process. (Id.) Defendant Beasley apparently
conducted the hearing anyway, and refused to help Plaintiff
figure out how to appeal his decision. (Id.)
Furthermore, to date, Defendant Beasley has not provided
Plaintiff with the basis for his finding of guilt.
Plaintiff contends the law library at TSP does not carry the
Georgia Administrative Code as part of its database.
construing Plaintiff's allegations in his favor and
granting him the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be
derived from the facts alleged, the Court finds Plaintiff has
arguably stated an Fourteenth Amendment due process
claim against Defendant Beasley for failing to provide
Plaintiff with a written basis for his finding of guilt.
See O'Bryant v. Finch, 637 F.3d 1207, 1213 (11th
Cir. 2011) (holding prisoners must be given written statement
by factfinder outlining evidence relied upon and reasons for
disciplinary action). In a companion Report and
Recommendation, the Court recommends dismissal of
Plaintiff's transfer, deliberate indifference, appeal,
and access to courts claims against all other Defendants.
IS HEREBY ORDERED that service of process shall be
effected on Defendant Beasley. The United States Marshal
shall mail a copy of the amended complaint (doc. no. 10) and
this Order by first-class mail and request that the
defendants waive formal service of the summons. Fed.R.Civ.P.
4(d). Individual defendants have a duty to avoid unnecessary
costs of serving the summons, and if a defendant fails to
comply with the request for waiver, the defendant must bear
the costs of personal service unless good cause can be shown
for failure to return the waiver. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(2). A
defendant whose return of the waiver is timely does not have
to answer the amended complaint until sixty days after the
date the Marshal mails the request for waiver. Fed.R.Civ.P.
4(d)(3). However, service must be effected within 90 days of
the date of this Order, and the failure to do so may result
in the dismissal of any unserved defendant or the entire
case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Plaintiff is responsible for
providing sufficient information for the Marshal to identify
and locate the defendant to effect service.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve upon
the defendant, or upon his defense attorney if appearance has
been entered by counsel, a copy of every further pleading or
other document submitted to the Court. Plaintiff shall
include with the papers to be filed a certificate stating the
date a true and correct copy of any document was mailed to
the defendants or their counsel. Fed.R.Civ.P. 5; Loc. R. 5.1.
Every pleading shall contain a caption setting forth the name
of the court, the title of the action, and the file number.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(a). Any paper received by a District Judge or
Magistrate Judge that has not been properly filed with the
Clerk of Court or that fails to include a caption or
certificate of service will be returned.
Plaintiff's duty to cooperate fully in any discovery that
may be initiated by the defendant. Upon being given at least
five days notice of the scheduled deposition date, Plaintiff
shall appear and permit his deposition to be taken and shall
answer, under oath and solemn affirmation, any question that
seeks information relevant to the subject matter of the
pending action. Failing to answer questions at the deposition
or giving evasive or incomplete responses to questions will
not be tolerated and may subject Plaintiff to severe
sanctions, including dismissal of this case. The
defendant shall ...