United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
K. EPPS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
currently incarcerated at the Burke County Detention Center
(“BCDC”) in Waynesboro, 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 COMPLAINT
names as Defendants (1) Alfonzo Williams, Sheriff; (2) John
H. Bush, Major; (3) Chester V. Huffman, Major; (4) Wilbert
Williams, Lieutenant; (5) Stacy Williams, Nurse; (6) Katie
Young, Nurse; and (7) Cassandra Haynes, Captain. (Doc. no.
17, pp. 2-3.) Taking all of Plaintiff's factual
allegations as true, as the Court must for purposes of the
present screening, the facts are as follows.
a white male, arrived at BCDC on March 28, 2017.
(Id. at 4.) No one conducted a medical screening,
but Plaintiff requested to see a mental health professional
via the kiosk in BCDC. (Id.) From March 28, 2017
through August 25, 2017, Plaintiff requested to see a mental
health professional more than seventeen times. (Id.)
Each time, Defendant Stacy Williams or Katie Young denied his
request and told him he could not see a mental health
professional. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff spoke with
Defendants Bush, Huffman, Haynes, and Wilbert Williams about
his inability to obtain mental health treatment, but they did
nothing. (Id. at 6.)
Young and Stacy Williams told Plaintiff he could not receive
mental health treatment because he was a “red
inmate” and thus not allowed outside of BCDC. However,
Plaintiff witnessed three African American inmates who were
also “red” taken out of BCDC for treatment of
pimples, hair bumps, and a jammed finger. (Id. at
August 25, 2017, Defendants sent Plaintiff to Ogeechee Mental
Health for an evaluation, where they prescribed him Elavil
twice a day for his mental health needs. (Id. at 7.)
As a result of Defendants' neglect of his mental health
needs from March 28, 2017 through August 25, 2017, Plaintiff
suffered from emotional distress, depression, anxiety, and
suicidal ideations. (Id. at 5-6.)
Legal Standard for Screening
complaint or any portion thereof may be dismissed if it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune to such relief. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). A claim is
frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law
or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). “Failure to state a claim under §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard as
dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6).” Wilkerson v. H & S, Inc., 366
F. App'x 49, 51 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Mitchell v.
Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997)).
avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, the allegations in the complaint must
“state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). That is,
“[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right
to relief above the speculative level.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. While Rule 8(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not require detailed
factual allegations, “it demands more than an
accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A
complaint is insufficient if it “offers ‘labels
and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action, '” or if it
“tenders ‘naked assertions' devoid of
‘further factual enhancement.'” Id.
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557). In short,
the complaint must provide a “‘plain
statement' possess[ing] enough heft to ‘sho[w] that
the pleader is entitled to relief.'”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P.
court affords a liberal construction to a pro se
litigant's pleadings, holding them to a more lenient
standard than those drafted by an attorney. Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, this liberal
construction does not mean that the court has a duty to
re-write the complaint. Snow v. DirecTV, Inc., 450
F.3d 1314, 1320 (11th Cir. 2006).
Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim for Supervisory Liability