Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Parks v. Roberts

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division

December 12, 2018

ROBERT LEE PARKS, Plaintiff,
v.
LIZ ROBERTS; WARDEN EDWARD PHILBIN; COMMISSIONER GREGORY C. DOZIER; DONNA YOUNG; LISA MAYO; ALICIA ROBIDEAU; ASHLEIGH LANZA; STEVEN H. ROSEBAUM; RITA K. LOMIO; DR. SHARON LEWIS; JAME D. SMITH; CINDY L. SMITH; STAN BAKER; LISA WOOD; NATHAN DEAL; and LYNDA SEWELL HUTSEY, Defendants.

          MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          BRIAN K. EPPS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff, an inmate at Augusta State Medical Prison (“ASMP”) in Grovetown, Georgia, commenced the above-captioned case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The case is now before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for emergency protection order and for screening under the IFP statute. (Doc. no. 9); Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 785 (11th Cir. 1984); Al-Amin v. Donald, 165 Fed.Appx. 733, 736 (11th Cir. 2006).

         I. SCREENING OF THE COMPLAINT

         A. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff names as Defendants: (1) Liz Roberts; (2) Warden Edward Philbin; (3) Commissioner Gregory C. Dozier; (4) Donna Young; (5) Lisa Mayo; (6) Alicia Robideau; (7) Ashleigh Lanza; (8) Steven H. Rosenbaum; (9) Rita K. Lomio; (10) Sharon Lewis; (11) Jame D. Smith; (12) Cindy L. Smith; (13) Stan Baker; (14) Lisa Wood; (15) Nathan Deal; and (16) Lynda Sewell Hutsey. (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.

         Plaintiff alleges Warden Edward Philbin, Donna Young, and Jame D. Smith concealed and plotted a conspiracy to cause harm or death to Plaintiff. (Id. at 5-7.) On an undisclosed date, Plaintiff sent two letters to the governor's office for protection from the Department of Corrections. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff sent another two letters to Lynda Sewell Hutsey for protection. (Id. at 6.) Also, he sent more than 300 pages of documents and a letter to Alicia Robideau for protection. (Id.) Plaintiff filled out and filed assault forms. (Id.) In 2018, he received a letter from Steven Rosenbaum after Plaintiff followed up with the Justice Department for protection. (Id.) Plaintiff states he has been held hostage at ASMP for no reason. (Id.) Plaintiff complains U.S. District Judge Stan Baker participated in the plot to cover and conceal when Judge Baker dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice and denied Plaintiff access to the court. (Id. at 7.)

         Generally, Plaintiff alleges every Defendant caused him to suffer grievous harm and deprivation of his rights. (Id. at 5-7.) Further, in an attachment, Plaintiff alleges he is a hostage at ASMP and has been in isolation since his confinement there in September 2016. (Doc. no. 1-1, p. 1.) He alleges there is a plot to cover up and conceal harm or death to him. (Id.) Plaintiff claims unknown persons are trying to use mental health treatment as a cover up. (Id.) Plaintiff requests injunctive relief, $2, 900, 000 in punitive damages, $5, 500, 000 in nominal damages, and $50, 000, 000 in compensatory damages. (Doc. no. 1, p. 8.)

         B. DISCUSSION

         1. Legal Standard for Screening

         The 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 Fed.Appx. 49, 51 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997)).

         To 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 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. 8(a)(2)).

         Finally, 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).

         2. Plaintiff Fails to State a Valid Claim against Defendants

         The Eleventh Circuit has held 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.”). Here, Plaintiff never alleges any facts sufficient to associate any Defendant with a constitutional violation. His conspiracy allegations against Warden Edward Philbin, Donna Young, and Jame D. Smith only set out the existence of a conspiracy. (See doc. no. 1. pp. 5-7.) He never alleges any facts concerning the nature of the conspiracy or how the Defendants are related in the conspiracy. Additionally, Plaintiff's allegations against the Defendants Hutsey, Robideau, Rosenbaum, Judge Baker, and the governor's office amount to nothing more than conclusory allegations ...


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.