Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00436/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00436-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Ronnie Williams,

AIS #239426,

Plaintiff,

:

:

:

:

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 15-436-WS-M

:

Wanda Lightner, et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by a

Plaintiff proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, was 

referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4), and is now before 

the Court for the screening of Plaintiff’s, Ronald Vincent 

Williams’, Complaint (Doc. 20) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A. After careful consideration of the record, it is 

recommended that this action be dismissed with regard to 

Defendants, Lightner and Travis, without prejudice prior to 

service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It is further recommended that this 

action be transferred to the Middle District of Alabama

with respect to the remaining Defendants.

Case 1:15-cv-00436-WS-M Document 22 Filed 02/01/16 Page 1 of 15
2

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Ronnie Williams, is an Alabama Department 

of Corrections (“ADOC”) inmate, currently serving a twenty

year sentence at the Easterling Correctional Facility. 

Plaintiff filed his Complaint (Doc. 1) on August 28, 2015, 

alleging violations of his constitutional rights under § 

1983. Based upon a review of Plaintiff’s Complaint and 

because Plaintiff filed multiple other pleadings subsequent 

to the filing of his Complaint which appeared to set forth 

additional defendants and additional constitutional 

violations, this Court ordered Plaintiff to file one

cohesive amended complaint. (Doc. 17). Therein, Plaintiff 

was specifically instructed that his Amended Complaint 

would supersede his initial Complaint and that it must 

contain a “short plain statement” with factual support. 

(Id. at 4-5). Plaintiff was additionally instructed that 

if he named as Defendants, individuals outside of the 

Southern District of Alabama, that his action against those 

individuals would be transferred to the appropriate 

district. (Id. at 4). 

On December 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Amended 

Complaint (Doc. 20) on the Court’s form for a § 1983 action 

as ordered. Therein, Plaintiff named as Defendants, Wanda 

Lightner, (Mobile Work Center), Lt. Travis, (Mobile Work 

Case 1:15-cv-00436-WS-M Document 22 Filed 02/01/16 Page 2 of 15
3

Center), Kevin Genous, (Classification Specialist at Kilby 

Corrections Intake Facility), Bridgett Tyler, 

(Classification Specialist at Kilby Corrections Intake

Facility), and Walter Myers, (Warden of Easterling 

Correctional Facility).1 Of the named Defendants, Kevin 

Genous, Bridgett Tyler, and Walter Myers are all located in 

the Middle District of Alabama and the violations allegedly

committed by these Defendants took place in the Middle 

District (at Easterling Correctional Facility). 

Furthermore, Plaintiff remains incarcerated at Easterling 

Correctional Facility in the Middle District of Alabama. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s action with regard to those 

Defendants should be litigated, if necessary, in the Middle 

District of Alabama, and it is recommended that this action 

be transferred to the same.2

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 Plaintiff additionally references as “defendants” four more 

individuals, i.e., Willie Maiben (Detective for Prichard Police 

Department), Jill Phillips (Assist. District Attorney), Travis Grant 

(Assist. District Attorney) and Carter Davenport (Warden). However, the 

Complaint form explicitly states “[t]he persons who are listed as 

Defendants in section III of the complaint are deem by the Court to be 

the only defendants to this action.” (Doc. 20 at p.1)(emphasis added). 

Because Plaintiff did not list the above individuals in section III of 

his Amended Complaint, they will not be considered as Defendants in 

this action.

2 “A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on 

diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be 

brought only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides if 

all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in 

which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the 

claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject 

of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any 

defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may 

otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 1:15-cv-00436-WS-M Document 22 Filed 02/01/16 Page 3 of 15
4

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint remains confusing. 

Nevertheless, when read in total, it appears that 

Plaintiff’s Complaint rests on one alleged action, i.e. his 

being misidentified as another inmate (also named Ronnie 

Williams). With regard to the only Defendants over which 

this Court has proper venue, Wanda Lightner and Lieutenant 

Travis, Plaintiff asserts that he was improperly placed in 

detention by Defendant Lightner in retaliation for his 

making multiple complaints relating to his 

misidentification and, that while in detention, his 

personal belongings were taken by Defendant Travis. More 

specifically, Plaintiff states that Defendant Lightner “did 

give order to have Plaintiff Williams placed in detention 

and transferred falsely in retaliation 6.9-10-2014 (sic).”

(Doc. 20 at p. 4). Plaintiff contends this detention was 

the result of Plaintiff’s “many complaints placed before 

concerning his identity and her misrepresentation of his 

identity.” (Id). According to Plaintiff, on October, 28, 

2013, and December 1, 2013, Ms. Lightner stated to him “I 

(sic) he wont (sic) to stay near home he need to keep his 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1404 provides: “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the 

interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to 

any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 28

U.S.C. § 1404(a). 

Case 1:15-cv-00436-WS-M Document 22 Filed 02/01/16 Page 4 of 15
5

mouth close (sic).” (Id). With regard to Defendant Travis, 

Plaintiff contends that Mr. Travis “stated that Ms. 

Lightner gave order to lock Plaintiff up in detention and 

to remove all items from the from the (sic) Plaintiff 

personal locker box within (sic) he being not present.” 

(Id). Plaintiff asserts that Mr. Travis removed documents 

belonging to Plaintiff that prove Plaintiff’s true

identity, i.e. copies of Plaintiff’s birth certificate and 

Social Security card. (Id). 

Standard of Review

Under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a complaint may be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 

(11th Cir. 1997). To avoid dismissal for failure to state 

a claim upon which relief can be granted, the allegations 

must show plausibility. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 557, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1966, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 

(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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). 

That is, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a 

right to relief above the speculative level” and must be a 

Case 1:15-cv-00436-WS-M Document 22 Filed 02/01/16 Page 5 of 15
6

“‘plain statement’ possess[ing] enough heft to ‘sho[w] that 

the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

555, 557, 127 S. Ct. at 1965, 1966 (second brackets in 

original). But “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a 

cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 

do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 

1949. 

When considering a pro se litigant’s allegations, a 

court gives them a liberal construction holding them to a 

more lenient standard than those of an attorney. Haines v. 

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 595-596, 30 

L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). The court, however, does not have 

“license . . . to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading 

[by a pro se litigant] in order to sustain an action.” GJR 

Investments v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 

1369 (11th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by

Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 710 (11th Cir. 2010) 

(relying on Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937). 

Furthermore, the court treats as true factual allegations, 

but it does not treat as true conclusory assertions or a 

recitation of a cause of action’s elements. Iqbal, 566 

U.S. at 681, 129 S. Ct. at 1951. 

Discussion

A. Defendant Lightner

Case 1:15-cv-00436-WS-M Document 22 Filed 02/01/16 Page 6 of 15
7

This Court understands Plaintiff’s allegations against 

Defendant Lightner to be a claim of retaliation. It is 

well established that inmates are protected by the First 

Amendment from retaliation by prison officials for filing 

lawsuits or administrative grievances. Wright v. Newsome, 

795 F.2d 964, 968 (11th Cir.1986); Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 

F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir.1997). “To state a first 

amendment claim for retaliation, a prisoner need not allege 

violation of a separate and distinct constitutional right.” 

Thomas v. Evans, 880 F.2d 1235, 1242 (11th Cir. 1989). 

Rather, “[t]he gist of a retaliation claim is that a 

prisoner is penalized for exercising the right of free

speech,” id., with a practice that is "not reasonably 

related to legitimate penological objectives" or take 

certain actions "with the intent of chilling that First 

Amendment right." Harris v. Ostrout, 65 F.3d 912, 916 (11th 

Cir. 1995), citing Turner v. Safley, 82 U.S. 78, 85-89 

(1987). 

“To state a retaliation claim cognizable under § 1983, 

a prisoner must demonstrate that (i) he engaged in a

constitutionally protected activity, (ii) he suffered 

adverse treatment simultaneously with or subsequent to such 

activity, and (iii) a causal connection existed between the 

protected activity and the adverse action.” Flynn v. Scott, 

Case 1:15-cv-00436-WS-M Document 22 Filed 02/01/16 Page 7 of 15
8

2006 WL 1236718, *5 (M.D. Ala. 2006) (citing Donnellon v. 

Fruehauf Corp., 794 F.2d598, 600-01 (11th Cir. 1986); 

Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1248(11th Cir. 2003)).

An inmate has the initial burden of establishing 

a prima facie case of unlawful retaliation by a 

preponderance of the evidence, which once 

established raises a presumption that prison 

officials retaliated against the inmate. . . . 

Merely alleging the ultimate fact of retaliation, 

however, is insufficient. . . . Additionally, 

conclusory allegations are insufficient to 

demonstrate the existence of each element 

requisite to demonstration of a retaliation 

claim. . . . 

Flynn, 2006 WL 1236718 at 5-6 (citations omitted). A 

prisoner “must allege facts showing that the allegedly 

retaliatory conduct would not have occurred but for the 

retaliatory motive.” Hempstead v. Carter, 2006 WL 2092383,

*5-6 (N.D. Fla. 2006) (emphasis added) (citing Jackson v. 

Fair, 846 F.2d 811, 820 (1st Cir. 1988)). “[A] causal 

connection may be alleged by a chronology of events that 

create a plausible inference of retaliation. Id. (citing 

Cain v. Lane, 857 F.2d 1139, 1143 n. 6 (7th Cir. 1988)). 

However, “[t]he relevant showing . . . must be more than 

the prisoner’s ‘personal belief that he is the victim of 

retaliation.’” Id. (citing Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 

299, 310 (5th Cir. 1997)). The prisoner must present with 

more than "general attacks" upon a defendant's motivations 

and must produce "affirmative evidence" of retaliation from 

Case 1:15-cv-00436-WS-M Document 22 Filed 02/01/16 Page 8 of 15
9

which a jury could find that plaintiff had carried his 

burden of proving the requisite motive. Crawford-El v. 

Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 600 (1998) (citations omitted). 

While a plaintiff may not be held to a heightened burden of 

proof, see id. at 580-86 (holding that in retaliation claim 

prisoner could not be required to show "clear and 

convincing" evidence of defendant's unconstitutional 

motives), courts should approach prisoner claims of 

retaliation "with skepticism and particular care" due to 

the "near inevitability" that prisoners will take exception 

with the decisions of prison officials and "the ease with 

which claims of retaliation may be fabricated." Dawes v. 

Walker, 239 F.3d 489, 491 (2nd Cir. 2001), overruled in 

part on other grounds by Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 

U.S. 506 (2002).

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not provide any factual 

details relating to his claim against Defendant Lightner, 

beyond the allegation that she “did give order to have 

Plaintiff Williams placed in detention and transferred 

falsely in retaliation 6.9-10-2014 (sic).” (Doc. 20 at p. 

4).3 Plaintiff alleges that his detention and transfer was

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3 To the extent that Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Lightner is 

also read to mean that Defendant Lightner ordered Defendant Travis to 

take Plaintiff’s personal property in retaliation for his alleged 

complaints, then that claim too, fails as a matter of law as not 

causally related, based on the reasoning above and herein, below. 

Case 1:15-cv-00436-WS-M Document 22 Filed 02/01/16 Page 9 of 15
10

in retaliation for him making numerous complaints relating 

to his identity or misidentification. However, there are 

no facts from which a causal link between Plaintiff’s

complaints and his detention and/or transfer could be 

formed. Instead, Plaintiff simply states conclusively, 

that Defendant Lightner’s actions were retaliatory. 

Specifically, there are no facts to show when Plaintiff’s 

complaints were made, to whom, or the nature of his 

complaints and Plaintiff failed to present any documents 

which would support his allegation. There are, likewise, 

no facts which show when Plaintiff was placed in detention 

and/or transferred or whether it was before or after his 

complaints were made to Defendant Lightner. Furthermore, 

there is no indication that the detention and transfer were 

the result of Plaintiff’s complaints other than Plaintiff’s 

conclusory opinion. As a result, the Court finds no causal 

connection between Plaintiff’s complaints relating to his 

alleged misidentification and his being placed in detention

or transferred. Because Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary 

element of his alleged constitutional claim, his complaint 

fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted 

with regard to Defendant Lightner. 

B. Defendant Travis

Case 1:15-cv-00436-WS-M Document 22 Filed 02/01/16 Page 10 of 15
11

Plaintiff contends that Mr. Travis placed Plaintiff in 

detention and removed documents belonging to Plaintiff that 

prove Plaintiff’s true identity, i.e. copies of Plaintiff’s 

birth certificate and Social Security card. (Id. at p. 4). 

While, Plaintiff did not specify what constitutional rights 

Mr. Travis allegedly violated, this Court reads Plaintiff’s 

allegation to assert a deprivation of property claim. 

The Due Process Clause protects prisoners from being 

deprived of property without due process of law, Wolff v. 

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974), and prisoners have a 

protected interest in their personal property, Hansen v. 

May, 502 F.2d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 1974). However, in a § 

1983 action, the taking of property only violates the 

Constitution when it is done without due process of law. 

Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 537, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1914, 

68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981), overruled on other grounds, Daniels 

v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 106 S.Ct. 662, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 

(1986). The Supreme Court held “that an unauthorized 

intentional deprivation of property by a state employee 

does not constitute a violation of the procedural 

requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy for the 

loss is available.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 

104 S.Ct. 3194, 3204, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984). Some 

Case 1:15-cv-00436-WS-M Document 22 Filed 02/01/16 Page 11 of 15
12

postdeprivation remedies that have satisfied due process 

are administrative procedures, Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 

527, 537, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1914, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981)

Parratt, 451 U.S. at 543–44, or ordinary state tort 

litigation procedures. Hudson, 468 U.S. at 535–36; see 

Dawson v. City of Montgomery, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19833, 

2008 WL 659800 (M.D.Ala. Mar.6, 2008) (unpublished) 

(finding that Alabama's conversion statute, Alabama Code § 

6–5–260 (1975), is an adequate postdeprivation remedy); 

Milton v. Espey, 356 So.2d 1201 (Ala.1978); ALA. CODE § 6–

5–262 (1975). Additionally, loss of property claims 

resulting from Alabama state agencies or their employees 

may be presented for compensation to the Alabama Board of 

Adjustment pursuant to Alabama Code §§ 41–9–60, et seq. 

See Johnson v. Patterson, 2014 WL 4771738 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 

24, 2014).

Because, in the present action, there is an 

alternative post deprivation state remedy, Plaintiff's 

claim that Defendant Travis violated his due process rights 

by taking his personal property, whether such was the 

result of negligence or an intentional act, is due to be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted. 

Case 1:15-cv-00436-WS-M Document 22 Filed 02/01/16 Page 12 of 15
13

Furthermore, to the extent that Plaintiff’s Complaint 

against Defendant Travis is liberally construed to assert

that Plaintiff was placed in detention or that his property 

was allegedly confiscated in retaliation for his making 

numerous complaints relating to his identity, dismissal is 

still warranted. Like with Defendant Lightner, Plaintiff 

has provided no facts which would allow this Court to 

conclude that the actions of Defendant Travis are related

to Plaintiff’s complaints relating to his identity. More 

specifically, Plaintiff has not stated what specific 

complaints were made to either Defendant Lightner or 

Travis, when they were made, on what grounds they were 

made, or how such complaints resulted in his being placed

in detention or his property being taken by Defendant 

Travis. Plaintiff has also failed to indicate whether the 

property allegedly taken by Defendant Travis was destroyed 

or otherwise not returned. Therefore, no conclusion can be 

drawn that Plaintiff’s detention or the taking of his 

personal property by one Defendant (Travis) at some point 

after a complaint was made to another Defendant (Lightner)

were causally related. As a result, Plaintiff has, again, 

failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

CONCLUSION

Case 1:15-cv-00436-WS-M Document 22 Filed 02/01/16 Page 13 of 15
14

After careful consideration of the record, it is 

recommended that this action be dismissed with regard to 

Defendants, Wanda Lightner and Lieutenant Travis, without 

prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It is further recommended 

that this action be transferred to the Middle District of 

Alabama with respect to the remaining Defendants.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS 

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be 

served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any 

party who objects to this recommendation or anything in it 

must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of 

this document, file specific written objections with the 

Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV.P. 

72(b); S.D. ALA. GenLR 72. The parties should note that 

under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to 

object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations 

contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with 

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to 

challenge on appeal the district court's order based on 

unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party 

was informed of the time period for objecting and the 

consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the 

absence of a proper objection, however, the court may 

Case 1:15-cv-00436-WS-M Document 22 Filed 02/01/16 Page 14 of 15
15

review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the 

interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In order to be 

specific, an objection must identify the specific finding 

or recommendation to which objection is made, state the 

basis for the objection, and specify the place in the

Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation where the 

disputed determination is found. An objection that merely 

incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before 

the Magistrate Judge is not specific. 

DONE this 1st day of February, 2016.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00436-WS-M Document 22 Filed 02/01/16 Page 15 of 15