Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Moss v. Knox

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division

February 2, 2018

ALLEN RUSTY KNOX, et al., Defendants.



         Presently pending before the Court are Defendant Prescott's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 73) and Defendant Blanks and Henderson's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 103). Plaintiff also has pending a motion to amend and a motion to compel. For the reasons explained below, it is recommended that Defendants' motions be granted and Plaintiff's motion to amend be denied. Plaintiff's motion to compel is denied.


         Plaintiff's claims arise from events beginning on August 17, 2014 which contributed to his arrest, prosecution, conviction, and jailing in Monroe County, Georgia for (1) cruelty to children, (2) sexual battery, (3) three counts of aggravated child molestation, and (4) two counts of child molestation. Compl. 5, ECF No. 1; Mot. Amend 2-3, ECF No. 48.

         Plaintiff contends that numerous persons violated his constitutional rights during the events and criminal proceedings that led to his conviction. Plaintiff alleges that Monroe County Sherriff's Department (“MCSD”) officials, primarily Defendants Adam Blanks and Allen Henderson, perjured themselves and improperly executed a search warrant issued for his property in order to secure an indictment against Plaintiff. Suppl. Compl. 4, ECF No. 48; Mot. Amend 1-2, ECF No. 42. Plaintiff also alleges that various trial court judges were intemperate and discourteous during Plaintiff's criminal proceedings, perjured themselves, ignored or denied his motions, and sought “revenge” against Plaintiff for filing motions and attempting to terminate his public defender. See, e.g., Compl. 1-3, ECF No. 1 in Moss v. Wilson, 5:16-cv-194-MTT-MSH (M.D. Ga. May 25, 2016) (“Moss III”); Suppl. Compl. 42-43, ECF No. 44. Plaintiff further contends that his landlord, James Mullis, actually committed the sexual crimes for which Plaintiff was convicted, and that Mr. Mullis was able to pay MCSD and court officials $50, 000 in order to avoid prosecution. Suppl. Compl. 5-6, ECF No. 48. Plaintiff alleges that his girlfriend, Jennifer Turner, perjured herself to police in order to have Plaintiff arrested in retaliation for Plaintiff threatening to “kick her out” of their trailer. Id.

         In his various pleadings, Plaintiff also raises claims regarding his confinement in the Monroe County Jail (“MCJ”). Primarily, Plaintiff alleges that MCSD officials (1) failed to provide him with “any type of law library, attorney, or help with legal work, ” (2) monitored and recorded his “private one on one meetings, ” (3) stopped his store orders after he announced he filed a lawsuit against his public defender, (4) failed to provide him adequate dental care, (5) failed to provide him adequate medical care, (6) failed to allow him to file grievances, and (7) kept inmates in “mold infested” cells. Mot. to Amend 6-8, 10-11, 14-15, ECF No. 38.

         Following preliminary review (ECF No. 84), three of Plaintiff's claims remain-a deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Prescott for providing Plaintiff with inadequate dental care and malicious prosecution claims against both Defendants Blanks and Henderson.

         On June 13, 2017, the undersigned recommended granting Defendant Prescott's motion to dismiss for Plaintiff's failure to exhaust. Order & R. & R. 7-11, ECF No. 94. Plaintiff filed multiple responses to the Recommendation in which he offers various new allegations regarding his attempts to exhaust his claims against Defendant Prescott. The district judge declined to rule on the motion to dismiss or the Recommendation and referred Plaintiff's new allegation to the undersigned for consideration. Order 1-2, Sept. 21, 2017, ECF No. 117. In response to the re-referral of the motion to dismiss, the Court directed Plaintiff to “supplement the record (with affidavits and/or other documents) within twenty-one (21) days to support his allegation that he was prevented from filing grievances.” Order 2, Oct. 4, 2017, ECF No. 119. Plaintiff moved for an extension of time to supplement the record (ECF No. 122), and such motion was granted (ECF No. 123). Plaintiff failed to supplement the record.

         In the meantime, Defendants Blanks and Henderson filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 103). Plaintiff filed various responses, each with multiple attachments. (ECF Nos. 107-113.) However, he did not file one document responsive to Defendants' arguments as directed in the Notice of Summary Judgment Motion (ECF No. 104). Plaintiff did file a response to Defendants' statement of material facts (ECF No. 107). On August 4, 2017, the undersigned granted Plaintiff's request for additional time to compile documents and other evidence. Order 3, Aug. 4, 2017, ECF No. 114. This request was construed as a motion for additional time to respond to the motion for summary judgment. Id. While Plaintiff did file additional documents he labels as exhibits, he did not file a response to the motion for summary judgment. Defendants' motions are ripe for review.


         I. Defendant Prescott's Motion to Dismiss

         Defendant Prescott moves to dismiss Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim against her for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (ECF No. 73). On June 13, 2017, the undersigned recommended that Defendant Prescott's motion be granted. Specifically, the Court used the two step analysis as outlined in Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077, 1082 (11th Cir. 2008), and found at the second step that Defendant Prescott met her burden to establish a lack of exhaustion. Order & R. & R. 9-10, Jun. 13, 2017. In evaluating Plaintiff's allegations that he was prevented from filing grievances, the undersigned explained:

Although Plaintiff contends that he was denied the opportunity to file a grievance, the fact that Plaintiff successfully filed two other grievances during his time at the Monroe County Jail belies this claim. Plaintiff first mentioned his claim against Defendant Prescott in his motion on May 13, 2016, within four months of filing his second grievance. Pl.'s Mot. to Amend 10, ECF No. 38. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Prescott's actions took place between August 2014 and February 2016, the same time in which Plaintiff actually filed his two grievances. Id. The evidence in the record thus contradicts Plaintiff's assertion. Absent further evidence of a denial of the opportunity to file a grievance regarding Defendant Prescott, the facts discussed above show that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies pertaining to his deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Prescott.

Order & R. & R. 10-11, Jun. 13, 2017.

         Plaintiff filed objections to the Recommendation on June 25, 2017. (ECF No. 98.) Therein, Plaintiff again asserts that he tried to file grievances but was prevented from doing so by offers at Monroe County Jail. For example, Plaintiff states that

[w]hen I would ask for a grievance form the[y] would ask “about what” then they would say, “let me ask the sargent [sic] if you can” and would not show back up. You would ask them again later, they would say some kind of story then say “let me ...

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.