United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
CHARLES H. WEIGLE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Jammie Maurice West, a prisoner at Riverbend Correctional
Facility in Milledgeville, Georgia, has filed a pro
se civil rights action in this Court seeking relief
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1.
reasons stated herein, it is RECOMMENDED
that GEO Corporation be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. It is RECOMMENDED that
Plaintiff's claim that conditions in Riverbend
Correctional Facility violate the Occupational Safety and
Health Act's (“OSHA”) laws and regulations be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's
Eighth Amendment claim that the conditions at Riverbend
Correctional Facility pose a serious threat to inmate health
and Warden Frederick Head is deliberately indifferent to
these conditions should proceed for further factual
Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis
motion for leave to proceed in this case without prepayment
of the required filing fee was previously granted, and
Plaintiff has paid the initial partial filing fee as ordered.
ECF Nos. 2, 6. Plaintiff remains responsible for the
remainder of the $350.00 filing fee. The
CLERK shall thus forward a copy of this
Order to the warden and/or business manager of the facility
in which Plaintiff is incarcerated so that withdrawals from
his account may commence as payment towards the filing fee.
accordance with the provisions of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b),
Plaintiff's custodian (and any successor custodians)
shall ensure that twenty percent (20%) of the income credited
to Plaintiff's account (at the institution or facility
which he is confined) be remitted to the Clerk of this Court
until the $350.00 filing fee has been paid in full. It is
ORDERED that Plaintiff's custodian
forward payments from the prisoner's account to the Clerk
of Court each month until the filing fee is paid in full,
provided the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. Collection
of monthly payments from Plaintiff's trust fund account
shall continue until the entire $350.00 has been collected,
notwithstanding the dismissal of Plaintiff's lawsuit or
the granting of judgment against him prior to the collection
of the full filing fee.
event Plaintiff is hereafter released from the custody of the
State of Georgia or any county thereof, he shall remain
obligated to pay any balance due on the filing fee in this
proceeding until said amount has been paid in full.
Collection from Plaintiff of any balance due on the filing
fee by any means permitted by law is authorized in the event
Plaintiff is released from custody and fails to remit
Preliminary Screening of Plaintiff's
Standard of Review
accordance with the PLRA, the district courts are obligated
to conduct a preliminary screening of every complaint filed
by a prisoner who seeks redress from a government entity,
official, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
Screening is also required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
when the plaintiff is proceeding IFP. Both statutes apply in
this case, and the standard of review is the same. When
conducting preliminary screening, the Court must accept all
factual allegations in the complaint as true. Boxer X v.
Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006); Hughes
v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1159-60 (11th Cir. 2003).
Pro se pleadings, like the one in this case, are
“‘held to a less stringent standard than
pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be
liberally construed.'” Boxer X, 437 F.3d
at 1110 (quoting Hughes, 350 F.3d at 1160). Still,
the Court must dismiss a prisoner complaint if it “(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.
claim is frivolous only if it ‘lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.'” Miller v.
Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). The
Court may dismiss claims that are based on
“‘indisputably meritless legal'”
theories and “‘claims whose factual contentions
are clearly baseless.'” Id. (quoting
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327). A complaint fails to
state a claim if it does not include “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)). The factual allegations in a complaint “must
be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level” and cannot “merely create a suspicion
[of] a legally cognizable right of action.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (first alteration in
original). In other words, the complaint must allege enough
facts “to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery
will reveal evidence” supporting a claim. Id.
at 556. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
state a claim for relief under §1983, a plaintiff must
allege that (1) an act or omission deprived him of a right,
privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or a
statute of the United States; and (2) the act or omission was
committed by a person acting under color of state law.
Hale v. Tallapoosa Cty., 50 F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th
Cir. 1995). If a litigant cannot satisfy these requirements
or fails to provide factual allegations in support of his
claim or claims, the complaint is subject to dismissal.
See Chappell v. Rich, 340 F.3d 1279, 1282-84 (11th
states that since his arrival at Riverbend Correctional
Facility on May 22, 2014, he has been housed in the G, I, and
F dorms. ECF No. 1 at 5. He complains that the G and I dorms
have “serious issues” that violate the
Occupational Safety and Health Act. Id. He contends
that the F dorm, in which he is currently housed, has mold in
the ceiling tiles, showers, exit doors, sky lights, and
utility closet. Id. He states the vents are not
being cleaned and the air conditioning filters are not being
changed. Id. According to Plaintiff, the ventilation
fans are not “turned on[, ] so a sour smell is always
[present] in [the] dorms.” Id. Plaintiff
states they are given “watered-down chemicals” to
clean on the weekdays, but not on weekends or holidays.
statement attached to his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that:
the ice coolers are old and smell of mold; the showers lack
water pressure; the food trays are not properly cleaned;
plastic utensils are re-used; “rats are running around
outside of the chow hall”; there are no fire
extinguishers in the dorms; exit signs are not posted in the
doorways; and the water from the sinks and water fountains is
dirty or contaminated and “stinks.” ECF No. 1-1
alleges the mold and unsanitary conditions have impacted his
health. He states that he suffers from various chronic
conditions, including vomiting, nose bleeds, cramps,
headaches, toe nail fungus, irritated eyes, and diarrhea. ECF
No. 1 at 5. He complains that in December 2016, he, along
with six or seven other inmates, had to receive medical
attention because they all suffered from diarrhea and
vomiting. ECF No. 1-1 at 1.
wants “OSHA to come in and investigate.” ECF No.
1 at 6. He also wants his medical bills to be paid and to be
compensated $100, 000 for his “medical issues,
sickness, mental ang[u]ish, etc.” Id.