United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
K. EPPS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
an inmate at Augusta State Medical Prison in Grovetown,
Georgia, has submitted to the Court for filing a complaint,
brought 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 E. Philibin; (2) Sergeant
Esser; and (3) Unit Manager Snowden. (Doc. no. 1, p. 1.)
Taking all of Plaintiff's factual allegations as true, as
the Court must for purposes of the present screening, the
facts are as follows.
13, 2019, Plaintiff made a public accusation regarding
violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. (Id. at
5.) He was subsequently placed in a segregated cell without
any medical supplies and personal property. (Id.)
Because of the denial of medical supplies necessary for his
health, Plaintiff was subjected to cruel and unusual
punishment. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges he needs
“Officer Straud” to write her statement on these
incidents, and Plaintiff is aware of another witness who can
testify to Plaintiff's sanitary needs being ignored.
(Id.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants are responsible
for deliberate indifference to his medical needs for their
lack of response and procedural errors. (Id.) For
relief, Plaintiff requests $200, 000 in damages against each
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 Defendants
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 attempts to allege Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs, but Plaintiff fails
to allege any facts showing Defendants were deliberately
indifferent. At most, Plaintiff's complaint amounts to
nothing more than conclusory allegations Defendants harmed
him. See Iqbal 556 U.S. at 678. Therefore, Plaintiff
fails to state a claim against Defendants. To state a valid
claim, Plaintiff must specify the specific actions or
omissions by each named defendant and explain how those
actions and missions caused the harm about which he