United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Dublin Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
K. EPPS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
an inmate at Valdosta State Prison in Valdosta, Georgia, is
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) in this case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 regarding events alleged to have occurred at
Johnson State Prison (“JSP”) in Wrightsville,
Georgia. Because he is proceeding 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 Fed.Appx. 733, 736
(11th Cir. 2006).
SCREENING OF THE COMPLAINT
names as Defendants: (1) Marilyn H. Callaway, deceased; (2)
Antione Caldwell, Warden of JSP; and (3) Forrest Lester,
chaplain. (Doc. no. 1, pp. 1.) Taking all of Plaintiff's
allegations as true, as the Court must for purposes of the
present screening, the facts are as follows.
birth mother, Defendant Marilyn H. Callaway, who is now
deceased, hid her relationship to Plaintiff for his entire
life. (Id. at 5.) Ms. Callaway colluded and
conspired with Glynn County Law Enforcement to keep him in
prison even though she knew the charges of child molestation
were false. (Id.) Plaintiff was arrested for these
charges in 1999 in Glynn County, Georgia. (Id.)
alleges Warden Caldwell and Chaplain Lester colluded and
conspired against all female officers of JSP by exploiting
them sexually without their knowledge. (Id.) Messrs.
Caldwell and Lester dispersed packages of lubricant
“intended for mastibitorary[sic] purposes” to all
inmates of JSP. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges this
amounted to sexual exploitation of the female officers in the
workplace, violating their civil rights. (Id.)
Messrs. Caldwell and Lester also put the female officers'
lives in jeopardy because there is very little security at
relief, Plaintiff requests “justice . . . against
Marilyn H. Callaway's estate.” (Id.) He
also requests “justice” for the women officers of
JSP who were wrongfully exploited for
“mastibiatory[sic] purposes through a Christmas Jack
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
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 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).
Plaintiffs Fails to State a Claim Against Defendants Because