United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Dublin Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
K. EPPS JUDGE
currently incarcerated at Telfair State Prison
(“TSP”) in Helena, Georgia, commenced the
above-captioned case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis,
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) (per curiam).
names the following Defendants: (1) Rodney McCloud, Deputy
Warden at TSP; (2) Barbara Grant, Unit Manager at TSP; (3)
Sergeant Watts, Building Sergeant at TSP; (4) Counselor
Stuart, Chief Counselor at TSP; and (5) Mrs. Whitt, Counselor
at TSP. (See doc. no. 14, pp. 1-4.) Taking all of
Plaintiff's factual allegations as true, as the Court
must for purposes of the present screening, the facts are as
October 26, 2018, members of the Blood Gang in Unit C1 at TSP
put a knife to Plaintiff's throat and robbed him of his
legal materials and other personal property. (Doc. no. 14,
pp. 4-5.) After they robbed Plaintiff, the gang members
escorted Plaintiff to his cell door and threatened Plaintiff
if he reported the robbery. (Id. at 15.) Plaintiff
reported the robbery to the floor officer, who called
Defendants Watts and Grant. (Id.) Upon their
arrival, Plaintiff asked the two Defendants to get his
property back, but Defendant Grant told Plaintiff he should
have fought back against the robbers, and he would not be
getting any of his property back. (Id.) Plaintiff
was then escorted to Unit E1. (Id.)
filed a grievance, but it was denied as untimely.
(Id. at 7, 12.) Once he received his grievance
response, Plaintiff tried to talk with Defendants Stuart and
Whitt about an appeal, but neither Defendant helped him with
the paperwork. (Id.) Plaintiff nevertheless
“appealed several times, ” but he never heard
anything. (Id. at 7, 16.) “Therefore,
Plaintiff thought it best to file civil suit.”
(Id. at 16.)
alleges Defendant McCloud created a policy of allowing staff
to ignore robberies by fellow inmates. (Id.) Under
this policy, Defendants Grant and Watts ignored
Plaintiff's complaint about losing his property in a
robbery. (Id. at 16-17.) Defendant Stuart was
deliberately indifferent for enforcing the time limit on
filing a grievance but requiring a prisoner to obtain the
grievance paperwork from his assigned counselor.
(Id. at 17.) Defendant Whitt was deliberately
indifferent by failing to make sure Plaintiff's appeal
was processed. (Id.)
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and
punitive damages, and the replacement of all his personal
property that was stolen. (Id. at 18.)
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, 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 amended
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 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.
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 amended complaint. Snow v. DirecTV,
Inc., 450 F.3d 1314, 1320 (11th Cir. 2006).
Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim Upon Which ...