United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Dublin Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
K. EPPS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
an inmate at Autry State Prison in Pelham, Georgia, is
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) in this civil rights case. Because
Plaintiff is proceeding IFP, his 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.
SCREENING OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
September 28, 2018, Plaintiff originally filed this action in
the Middle District of Georgia relating to events alleged to
have occurred at Autry State Prison in Pelham, Georgia
(“ASP”), Baldwin State Prison in Milledgeville,
Georgia (“BSP”), and Johnson State Prison in
Wrightsville, Georgia (“JSP”). (Doc. no. 1.) On
March 22, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q.
Langstaff ordered Plaintiff to amend his Complaint because he
had not pleaded sufficient facts to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted. (Doc. no. 7.) On April 15, 2019,
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint titled “Recast
Complaint” and a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. (Doc. nos. 8, 9.) On July 30, 2019,
United States District Judge Leslie A. Gardner granted
Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismissed without prejudice any potential
claims arising out of Plaintiff's treatment at either
Autry or Baldwin State Prisons for failure to name any
particular prison official at either of those institutions.
(Doc. no. 10.) Because the only remaining claims concerned
events allegedly occurring at JSP, Judge Gardner transferred
this case to the Southern District of Georgia. (Id.
at 5.) Thus, the only claims before the Court are those
allegedly occurring at JSP.
amended complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants: (1) Johnson
State Prison; (2) Lt. Comming; (3) Cpt. Dougley; (4) Warden
Watson; and (5) Officer Gibbs. (Doc. no. 8, 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
23, 2018, Plaintiff began having seizures at JSP which
persisted over the course of several days. (Doc. no. 8, p.
5.) During one of these seizures, Plaintiff fell off the bed
while being transported to the emergency room, injuring the
plate inside his back and neck. (Id.) Plaintiff
asserts he did not receive adequate medical treatment for
these injuries and has sharp pains up and down his legs and
back. (Id.) Plaintiff was transferred from JSP to
ASP before he could file a completed grievance to prevent him
from suing on the underlying claim. (Id.)
relief, Plaintiff requests $99, 800 in compensatory damages
and injunctive relief.
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). 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 ...