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.

Talley v. Glynn County Detention Center

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

October 13, 2017

MICHAEL SHANNON TALLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
GLYNN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; et al., Defendants.

          ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          R. STAN BAKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff, who is currently housed at the Georgia Diagnostic & Classification State Prison in Jackson, Georgia, filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contesting certain events which allegedly occurred in Brunswick, Georgia. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 2.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion. For these same reasons, I RECOMMEND the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint based on his failure to state a claim, DIRECT the Clerk of Court to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal and CLOSE this case, and DENY Plaintiff in forma pauperis status on appeal.

         BACKGROUND

         In his Complaint, Plaintiff maintains Defendant Mark Gordon with the Probation Division of the Georgia Department of Corrections submitted a petition for modification or revocation of his parole accusing Plaintiff of committing felonies. Plaintiff states Defendants Roger Lane and Anthony Harrison, both of whom are Glynn County Superior Court judges, signed the petition based on felony charges Plaintiff claims he did not commit. (Doc. 1-1, p.1.) In addition, Plaintiff asserts an unknown Assistant District Attorney knowingly used perjured testimony at some unspecified time, presumably from a Brunswick Police Department officer. (Id. at pp. 2, 3.) Plaintiff alleges unknown officers with the Glynn County Police Department arrested him without a warrant or probable cause. Plaintiff contends Sheriff Jump and Undersheriff Corbett illegally detained him at the Glynn County Detention Center.

         Further, Plaintiff asserts Defendants Gunderson and Kidder failed to give him several medications, including medications he needs for his mental health condition. Additionally, Plaintiff avers Defendant Hall told him he would not receive “benzo's [sic]”, even though he was warned he should never stop taking these medications because he could have seizures or other medical problems. (Id. at pp. 3-4.) Plaintiff also asserts Defendants Lowe and Heath allowed these violations to occur because these two Defendants did nothing to help Plaintiff after he filed grievances. (Id. at p. 2.) Plaintiff states “medical staff” at Glynn County Detention Center and Defendant Frazier placed him in isolation, in violation of policy. (Id. at p. 4.) Plaintiff further states Defendant Brooks began floating his medications because she said Plaintiff had been caught hoarding them.

         As relief, Plaintiff seeks to: have all charges against him dismissed; have his record expunged; be released on his own recognizance; be compensated for the time he was falsely imprisoned and for being denied medications; receive money for the care of his daughter; change the law; have the parties who broke the law punished; and have probation abolished. (Id. at p. 5.)

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Plaintiff seeks to bring this action in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), the Court may authorize the filing of a civil lawsuit without the prepayment of fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all of his assets, shows an inability to pay the filing fee, and also includes a statement of the nature of the action which shows that he is entitled to redress. Even if the plaintiff proves indigence, the Court must dismiss the action if it is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). Additionally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review a complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity. Upon such screening, the Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion thereof, that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or which seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

         The Court looks to the instructions for pleading contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when reviewing a Complaint on an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain [among other things] . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 10 (requiring that claims be set forth in numbered paragraphs, each limited to a single set of circumstances). Further, a claim is frivolous under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) “if it is ‘without arguable merit either in law or fact.'” Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001)).

         Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Thompson v. Rundle, 393 F. App'x 675, 678 (11th Cir. 2010). Under that standard, this Court must determine whether the complaint contains “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) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A plaintiff must assert “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not” suffice. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Section 1915 also “accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1349 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)).

         In its analysis, the Court will abide by the long-standing principle that the pleadings of unrepresented parties are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys and, therefore, must be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006) (“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys[.]”) (quoting Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003)). However, Plaintiff's unrepresented status will not excuse mistakes regarding procedural rules. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“We have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.”).

         DISCUSSION

         I. Claims Against Sheriff Jump and Undersheriff Corbett

         In order to state a claim for relief under Section 1983, a plaintiff must satisfy two elements. First, a plaintiff must allege that an act or omission deprived him “of some right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Hale v. Tallapoosa Cty., 50 F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th Cir. 1995). Second, a plaintiff must allege that the act or omission was committed by “a person acting under color of state law.” Id. Further, Section 1983 liability must be based on something more than a defendant's supervisory position or a theory of respondeat superior.[1] Bryant v. Jones, 575 F.3d 1281, 1299 (11th Cir. 2009); Braddy v. Fla. Dep't of Labor & Emp't Sec., 133 F.3d 797, 801 (11th Cir. 1998). A supervisor may be liable only through personal participation in the alleged constitutional violation or when there is a causal connection between the supervisor's conduct and the alleged violations. Id. at 802. “To state a claim against a supervisory defendant, the plaintiff must allege (1) the supervisor's personal involvement in the violation of his constitutional rights, (2) the existence of a custom or policy that resulted in deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's constitutional rights, (3) facts supporting an inference that the supervisor directed the unlawful action or knowingly failed to prevent it, or (4) a history of widespread abuse that put the supervisor on notice of an alleged deprivation that he then failed to correct.” Barr v. Gee, 437 F. App'x 865, 875 (11th Cir. 2011).

         Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants Jump and Corbett liable solely based on their supervisory positions as Sheriff and Undersheriff of Glynn County, Georgia. However, Plaintiff fails to present any facts indicating there is a causal connection between any actions of Defendants Jump and Corbett and the alleged violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. He does not allege that Defendants Jump and Corbett were personally involved in the conditions that he complains of or that the conditions resulted from some custom or policy Defendants Jump or Corbett promulgated or maintained. Plaintiff also fails to plausibly allege that Defendants Jump and Corbett directed the allegedly unlawful conditions or ignored a widespread history of abuse in this regard. In fact, Plaintiff fails to make even conclusory allegations that Defendants Jump ...


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.