United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
T. TREADWELL, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
was incarcerated at Riverbend Correctional Facility in
Milledgeville, Georgia when he filed his original complaint
on July 7, 2017. ECF Nos. 1 at 1; 13 at 3-5. While still
incarcerated at Riverbend, Plaintiff moved for a preliminary
injunction on July 20, 2017. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff was then
transferred to Wheeler Correctional Facility in Alamo,
Georgia. ECF No. 7. Following this transfer, he filed two
amended complaints. ECF Nos. 8, 9. Plaintiff was then
transferred to Washington State Prison in Davisboro, Georgia.
ECF No. 11.
amended complaint generally takes the place of or supersedes
the original complaint. Lane v. Philbin, 835 F.3d
1302, 1305 n.1 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing Fritz v. Standard
Sec. Life Ins. Co. of New York, 676 F.2d 1356, 1358
(11th Cir. 1982)). But, it was not clear if Plaintiff wanted
his last amended complaint to supersede the previous two
complaints. Also, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure requires “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Plaintiff's various complaints and attachments were
neither short nor plain. Therefore, Plaintiff was ordered to
file an amended complaint that would take the place of and
supersede all of the previous complaints that he had filed.
ECF No. 12. Plaintiff has now filed this amended complaint.
ECF No. 13.
also sought leave to proceed without prepayment of the
required filing fee. ECF No. 2. On November 30, 2017, the
United States Magistrate Judge granted his motion to proceed
in forma pauperis. ECF No. 12.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
sought a preliminary injunction “due to his safety . .
. at Riverbend Correctional [Facility].” ECF No. 6 at
1. He alleged the conditions of confinement at Riverbend
posed a threat to his health. Id. He also stated
that he may be subjected to gang violence at Riverbend
because he was labeled a “snitch” following a May
5, 2017 assault. Id.
is no longer confined at Riverbend. “[A]n inmate's
clam for injunctive . . . relief in a section 1983 action
fails to present a case or controversy once the inmate has
been transferred. Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169,
1173 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (citing Dudley v.
Stewart, 724 F.2d 1493, 1494-95 (11th Cir. 1984)).
Injunctive relief is a prospective remedy that is meant to
prevent future injuries. Plaintiff will suffer no future
injuries at Riverbend Correctional Facility because he is no
longer confined there. Thus, Plaintiff's request for
preliminary injunctive relief to protect him from the
allegedly illegal conditions of confinement and future gang
violence at Riverbend is DENIED AS
Preliminary Screening of Plaintiff's Amended
Standard of Review
accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“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 a 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
stated above, Plaintiff was incarcerated at Riverbend
Correctional Facility when he filed this action. ECF Nos. 1
at 1; 13 at 3-5. He states that on April 18, 2017, Lieutenant
Marcus Morris moved him to the “lifers
cellhouse.” ECF No. 13 at 5. According to Plaintiff, on
May 5, 2017 he witnessed the following violence: “a
known gang . . . jumpin[g] on all inmates in the lifers
cellhouse”; five inmates . . . beat[ing] up all gay
inmates in the lifer[s] cellhouse”; and “one
inmate . . . getting beat up in the middle of the day
room.” Id. As all of this occurred, his
roommate, who is a gang member, hit him in the back of the
head. Id. Plaintiff complains that Major Fletcher
and Captain Young escorted him “to segregation without
any medical attention.” Id. Plaintiff ...