United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Dublin Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
K. EPPS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
incarcerated at Dodge State Prison (“DSP”) in
Chester, 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) Warden Tommy Bowen; (2) Sherryl
Blair, Deputy Warden of Administration; (3) C.O. II Coney;
and (4) Lieutenant Johnson. (Doc. no. 1, pp. 1-3.) Taking all
of Plaintiff's factual allegations as true, as the Court
must for purposes of the present screening, the facts are as
March 15, 2019, Plaintiff was eating his evening meal in the
cafeteria at DSP. (Id. at 4-5.) While Plaintiff was
eating, Defendants Blair, Coney, and Johnson harassed
Plaintiff in an attempt to have Plaintiff throw away his
meal. (Id. at 5.) Defendants Blair, Coney, and
Johnson also threatened to spray Plaintiff with an unknown
substance. (Id.) Defendants Blair, Coney, and
Johnson did not care for Plaintiff's health, and their
harassment forced Plaintiff to leave. (Id.) For
relief, Plaintiff requests injunctive relief and unstated
compensatory damages. (Id.)
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).
Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim Against Warden Tommy
Eleventh Circuit has held that a district court properly
dismisses a defendant where a plaintiff fails to state any
allegations that associate the defendant with the purported
constitutional violation. Douglas v. Yates, 535 F.3d
1316, 1321-22 (11th Cir. 2008) (“While we do not
require technical niceties in pleading, we must demand that
the complaint state with some minimal particularity how overt
acts of the defendant caused a legal wrong.”).
Plaintiff alleges no facts regarding Warden Tommy Bowen.
Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Warden
Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim Based on Allegations of