United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Dublin Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
K. EFPS, UNIED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
an inmate at Telfair State Prison (“TSP”) in
Helena, Georgia, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) in this case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Because he is proceeding IFP, Plaintiff's
amended complaint must be screened to protect potential
defendants. Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 785
(11th Cir. 1984); Al-Amin v. Donald, 165 Fed.Appx.
733, 736 (11th Cir. 2006).
SCREENING OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
names as Defendants: (1) Rodney McCloud, Deputy Warden; (2)
Officer Adamkiewicz; and (3) Nurse Murray. (Doc. no. 14, pp.
1-2.) Taking all of Plaintiff's allegations as true, as
the Court must for purposes of the present screening, the
facts are as follows.
November 1, 2018, Officer Adamkiewicz escorted Plaintiff from
the shower in an unsecured manner. (Id. at 4.) While
handcuffed behind the back, Plaintiff fell very hard from a
set of stairs onto his back, neck, and buttocks.
(Id.) Officer Adamkiewicz knew the floors were wet
and ignored a caution sign, which caused Plaintiff to fall.
(Id. at 6.) When Plaintiff asked Officer Adamkiewicz
to call medical, she did so and informed medical Plaintiff
slipped in water. (Id. at 4.) Nurse Murray arrived
after approximately fifteen minutes. (Id.) Officer
Adamkiewicz told Nurse Murray Plaintiff slipped in water on
the stairway. (Id.) A nurse assisting Nurse Murray
asked Plaintiff if he could move. (Id.) Plaintiff
told her he could not and his back, neck, and buttocks hurt.
(Id.) Nurse Murray and her assistant saw Plaintiff
was bleeding from his lower back where the handcuffs dug in,
but the nurses ignored his complaint and injury.
(Id.) Nurse Murray failed to examine Plaintiff.
(Id. at 6.) Nurse Murray became mad at Plaintiff and
told officers to return Plaintiff to his cell. (Id.
at 4.) Plaintiff was denied Tylenol, ibuprofen, and bandages.
(Id.) Plaintiff received pain medication and
physical therapy one month later. (Id.) Plaintiff
still experiences sharp pain in his back, neck, and buttocks.
Warden McCloud created a policy of allowing a single officer
to escort inmates without securing them properly.
(Id. at 3.) Officer Adamkiewicz violated S.O.P.
policy by not securing Plaintiff's arms properly and not
ensuring two or more officers escorted Plaintiff in the
segregation isolation units. (Id. at 4.)
relief, Plaintiff seeks: (1) declaratory relief; (2) $5, 000
in compensatory damages against each Defendant, jointly and
severally; (3) $5, 000 in punitive damages against Officer
Adamkiewicz; (4) $10, 000 in punitive damages against Nurse
Murray; and (5) an injunction preventing TSP officers from
escorting inmates without at least one additional officer
Legal Standard for Screening
amended 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
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 amended
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. An
amended 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 amended 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)).
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