United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division
K. EPPS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
an inmate at Hays State Prison (“HSP”) in Trion,
Georgia, is proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) in this civil rights case.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding IFP, his 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
SCREENING OF THE COMPLAINT
names the following Defendants: (1) Augusta State Medical
Prison (“ASMP”) Dental Department; (2) Mr.
Conley, former Warden at ASMP; (3) Mr. Shephard, former
Warden at ASMP; and (4) Mr. Brown, former Warden at ASMP.
(Doc. no. 1, pp. 1, 4.) Taking all of Plaintiff's
allegations as true, as the Court must for purposes of the
present screening, the facts are as follows.
January of 2016, prison officials at HSP sent Plaintiff to
ASMP to obtain treatment for mental and physical injuries
incurred as the result of a prison rape. (Id. at 6.)
However, Plaintiff's rape was not treated as an
emergency, and he had to wait several weeks to obtain
treatment. (Id.) The “Dental Department”
at ASMP took an x-ray of Plaintiff's jaw on January 26,
2016, but did not show the x-ray to Plaintiff. (Id.)
Plaintiff “walked around with a broken jaw hinge. A big
fracture on left bottom side. [and] [His] bottom teeth and
gums were separated.” (Id.) He could not chew
anything for two to three weeks because of his dental issues.
has also included with his filings in this case attachments
that appear to have come from a case he has pending in the
Rome Division of the Northern District of Georgia.
(Id. at 5, 8 (citing Bradley v. Crickmar,
4:17-CV-0193-HLM-WEJ (N.D.Ga. Aug. 18, 2017)); see
also doc. no. 4-2.)
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.
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.
the 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).
Pleading Deficiencies in Plaintiff's Complaint
because of pleading deficiencies, the Court cannot determine
whether Plaintiff has any viable claims. The Eleventh Circuit
has held that a district court properly dismisses a defendant
where a prisoner, other than naming the defendant in the
caption of the complaint, fails to state any allegations that
associate the defendant with the purported constitutional
violation. Douglas v. Yates, 535 F.3d 1316, 1321-22
(11th Cir. 2008) (“While we do not require technical
niceties in pleading, we must demand that the complaint state
with some minimal particularity how overt acts of the
defendant caused a legal wrong.”). Plaintiff must
describe how each individual participated in any alleged
constitutional violation. See West v. Atkins, 487
U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (requiring in a § 1983 case an
allegation of the violation of a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States by a person acting
under color of state law). Plaintiff never mentions three of
the four named Defendants in his statement of claim.
Moreover, based on the titles of these three Defendants who
were not mentioned, they appear to be individuals with
supervisory authority at ASMP, but “[s]upervisory
officials are not liable under ...