United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
K. EPPS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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.
SCREENING OF THE COMPLAINT
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.
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.)
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.)
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
Fed.Appx. 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 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).
Plaintiff Fails to State a Valid Claim against
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 ...