United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division
TAVARRES J. HENDERSON, Plaintiff,
ROBERT LEVERETT, Major, Individual Capacity; OFFICER FNU MATHIS, Individual Capacity; and SGT. FNU BARBER, Individual Capacity, Defendants.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
K. EPPS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
a pretrial detainee at Charles B. Webster Detention Center in
Augusta, Georgia, brought the above-captioned case pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding events alleged to have
occurred at Charles B. Webster Detention Center in Augusta,
Georgia. Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis
(“IFP”), Plaintiff's 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
names as Defendants: (1) Major Robert Leverett, (2) Officer
Mathis, and (3) Sergeant Barber. (Doc. no. 1, p. 1.) Taking
all of Plaintiff's factual allegations as true, as the
Court must for purposes of the present screening, the facts
are as follows.
25, 2017, Plaintiff was sent to F-F Block and remained there
for five months under protective custody. (Doc. no. 1, p. 5.)
Plaintiff had no telephone access, visitation, hygiene
supplies, or envelopes. (Id.) Plaintiff “had
to sell his lunch tray's [sic] to other inmates for
stamped envelopes in order to write his lawyer.”
(Id.) On July 8, 2017, Plaintiff informed Major
Leverett, the alleged head of the detention center, about
these conditions, and Major Leverett told Plaintiff the
problems would be addressed but they were not. (Id.)
Plaintiff filed grievances on July 5, 2017, July 17, 2017,
and August 2, 2017. (Id.) The grievances were denied
on August 2, 2017, and Plaintiff filed an appeal on August 3,
2017. (Id.) Plaintiff did not receive a response to
his grievance appeal. (Id.)
October 13, 2017, Plaintiff met with Sergeant Barber, who
informed Plaintiff he was being moved to a new protective
custody block and asked Plaintiff to sign a release form.
(Id.) Plaintiff was transferred to G-F block.
(Id.) Within ten minutes of being placed in his new
cell, five inmates “had officer's [sic] to pop open
his door, ” attacked Plaintiff, and forced him to
“write and sign a[n] affidavit to free Plaintiff's
co-defendant of his current charges.” (Id. at
6.) Plaintiff informed the officers on duty of the attack and
“was ignored.” (Id.)
October 18, 2017, Plaintiff received a care package.
(Id.) When Plaintiff returned to his cell with the
care package, three inmates held a knife to his throat and
forced Plaintiff to give them the care package and a radio.
(Id.) Plaintiff informed Officer Mathis of the
attack and requested to be sent to protective custody, but
Officer Mathis ignored Plaintiff. (Id.) Officers
found the knife on October 24, 2017. (Id.) Plaintiff
was sent back to F-F block and filed a grievance on November
6, 2017. (Id.) On November 16, 2017, prison
officials denied the grievance. (Id.) On November
17, 2017, Plaintiff appealed the denial but did not receive a
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, 327 (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 for 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
unadorned, the defendant unlawfully-harmed-me
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. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 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 against Defendant
Eleventh Circuit has held that a district court properly
dismisses a defendant where a plaintiff 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 alleges Sergeant Barber informed him he was being
transferred and asked him to sign a release form. (Doc. no.
1, p. 5.) Plaintiff alleges no ...