United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division
K. EPPS UNITED STALES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
incarcerated at Augusta State Medical Prison
(“ASMP”) in Grovetown, Georgia, brought the
above-captioned case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis
(“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) (per curiam).
SCREENING OF THE COMPLAINT
names as Defendants: (1) Latasha Harris, Unit Manager; and
(2) Warden Edward Pailben. (Doc. no. 1, 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 2018, prison officials placed Plaintiff in handcuffs
while he was on suicide watch for attempting to flood his
cell. (Id. at 5.) Prison officials attempted to
retrieve the handcuffs, but Plaintiff refused. (Id.)
In response, Unit Manager Harris instructed Cert Team Officer
Smith to spray Plaintiff with an unspecified substance.
(Id.) Plaintiff's hands were still behind his
back while Officer Smith sprayed Plaintiff. (Id.)
Plaintiff states he was not “acting up at the
the incident where Plaintiff was sprayed, Plaintiff stayed in
Cell 313 for a month without running water. (Id.)
His toilet was full of excrement, and Officer Taylor would
have to pour a bucket full of water to flush the toilet.
(Id.) Plaintiff states Unit Manager Harris caused
this because she would not let Plaintiff have running water.
(Id.) Plaintiff further states he was left in a cell
without a mattress for a month because Unit Manager Harris
would not let Plaintiff have one. (Id.) Plaintiff
seeks $30, 000 in compensatory damages and $30, 000 in
punitive damages from each Defendant. (Id. at 6.)
construing Plaintiff's allegations in his favor and
granting him the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be
derived from the facts alleged, the Court finds Plaintiff has
arguably stated a claims for excessive force and
conditions of confinement against Unit Manager Harris.
See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992)
(“[T]he use of excessive physical force against a
prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment [even]
when the inmate does not suffer serious injury.”);
Brooks v. Warden, 800 F.3d 1295, 1304 (11th Cir.
2015) (“[E]very sister circuit . . . has recognized
that the deprivation of basic sanitary conditions can
constitute an Eighth Amendment violation.”);
Chandler v. Baird, 926 F.2d 1057, 1063, 1065-66
(11th Cir. 1991) (finding Eighth Amendment violation where
prisoner plaintiff deprived of toilet paper for three days,
running water for two days, and lack of soap, toothbrush,
toothpaste, and linen). In a companion Report and
Recommendation, the Court recommends dismissal of
Plaintiff's claims against Warden Edward Pailben.
IS HEREBY ORDERED that service of process shall be
effected on Unit Manager Harris. The United States Marshal
shall mail a copy of the complaint (doc. no. 1) and this
Order by first-class mail and request that the defendant
waive formal service of the summons. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d).
Individual defendants have a duty to avoid unnecessary costs
of serving the summons, and if a defendant fails to comply
with the request for waiver, the defendant must bear the
costs of personal service unless good cause can be shown for
failure to return the waiver. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(2). A
defendant whose return of the waiver is timely does not have
to answer the complaint until sixty days after the date the
Marshal mails the request for waiver. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(3).
However, service must be effected within 90 days of the date
of this Order, and the failure to do so may result in the
dismissal of any unserved defendant or the entire case.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Plaintiff is responsible for providing
sufficient information for the Marshal to identify and locate
the defendant to effect service.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve upon
the defendant, or upon their defense attorney if appearance
has been entered by counsel, a copy of every further pleading
or other document submitted to the Court. Plaintiff shall
include with the papers to be filed a certificate stating the
date a true and correct copy of any document was mailed to
the defendant or their counsel. Fed.R.Civ.P. 5; Loc. R. 5.1.
Every pleading shall contain a caption setting forth the name
of the court, the title of the action, and the file number.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(a). Any paper received by a District Judge or
Magistrate Judge that has not been properly filed with the
Clerk of Court or that fails to include a caption or
certificate of service will be returned.
Plaintiff's duty to cooperate fully in any discovery that
may be initiated by the defendant. Upon being given at least
five days notice of the scheduled deposition date, Plaintiff
shall appear and permit his deposition to be taken and shall
answer, under oath and solemn affirmation, any question that
seeks information relevant to the subject matter of the
pending action. Failing to answer questions at the deposition
or giving evasive or incomplete responses to questions will
not be tolerated and may subject Plaintiff to severe
sanctions, including dismissal of this case. The
defendant shall ensure that Plaintiff's deposition and
any other depositions in the case are taken within the
140-day discovery period allowed by this Court's
this action is pending, Plaintiff shall immediately inform
this Court and opposing counsel of any change of address.
Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this case.
must pursue this case; if Plaintiff does not press the case
forward, the Court may dismiss it for want of prosecution.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 41; Loc. R. 41.1. If Plaintiff wishes to obtain
facts and information about the case from the defendant,
Plaintiff must initiate discovery. See generally
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 through 37 (containing the rules governing
discovery and providing for the basic methods of discovery).
Plaintiff should begin discovery promptly ...