Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_19-cv-00605/USCOURTS-alsd-1_19-cv-00605-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES EUGENE MOORE, #297332, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 19-0605-KD-MU

CLEO TOLLIVER, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was referred to the undersigned 

for appropriate action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and S.D. Ala. GenLR 

72(a)(2)(R). After careful review, it is recommended that the claims against Defendants

Kenneth Peters and William Streeter be dismissed without prejudice, prior to service of 

process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted, with leave being granted Plaintiff to amend his claims against 

them. This action, nonetheless, is due to proceed against the remaining Defendant, 

Cleo Tolliver.

I. Complaint (Doc. 3).

Plaintiff named three Defendants in this action, Lieutenant Cleo Tolliver, Warden 

Kenneth Peters, and Warden William Streeter, who were employed at Fountain 

Correctional Facility (Fountain) at the time of the incident. (Doc. 3 at 5-6, PageID.16-

17). In Plaintiff’s brief complaint, he alleges that on February 4, 2018, Defendant 

Case 1:19-cv-00605-KD-MU Document 17 Filed 04/06/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

Tolliver sprayed a can of mace on him while he was locked in a shower in Fountain’s 

segregation unit and said that he was going to kill Plaintiff. (Id. at 5, PageID.16). To 

support this claim, Plaintiff states there is a body chart, an excessive force document, 

documents with a psychological associate and the Equal Justice attorneys, who

reported the incident to the Justice Department. (Id.). Defendant Tolliver has caused 

him to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, mental and psychological stress, 

anxiety, nerve damage, pain and suffering. (Id.).

In addition, Plaintiff alleges that the “prison administrators” violated sections of 

the Alabama Code, the Eighth Amendment, and the Due Process Clause and have 

acted beyond the authority given by state laws and the scope of their duties. (Id.). He 

also alleges that he was found not guilty in a habeas proceeding. (Id.). 

For Plaintiff’s specific claims against Defendant Peters, he alleges “negligence, 

corruption, unfair discrimination, wrongful acts [-] violating the conduct within the scope 

of their duties.” (Id. at 6, PageID.17). For the claims against Defendant Streeter, 

Plaintiff makes the same statement but includes that he was also careless. (Id.).

II. Standards of Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is reviewing his 

complaint (Doc. 3) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a claim 

may be dismissed as “frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.” Neitzke 

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831-32, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). A 

claim is frivolous as a matter of law where, inter alia, the defendants are immune from 

Case 1:19-cv-00605-KD-MU Document 17 Filed 04/06/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:

<pageID>
3

suit, id. at 327, 109 S.Ct. at 1833, or the claim seeks to enforce a right that clearly does 

not exist. Id.1

Moreover, a complaint may be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) 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 Atl. 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 “‘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). “Threadbare 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, 

Tannenbaum v. U.S., 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998), but it does not have “license 

. . . to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” GJR Inv., Inc. 

v. Cty. of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998), overruled on other 

grounds by Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 U.S. (2009). Furthermore, the court treats factual 

1 Neitzke’s interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) is applied to § 1915(d)’s superseding statute, 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346,1348-49 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 

U.S. 1044 (2001).

Case 1:19-cv-00605-KD-MU Document 17 Filed 04/06/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:

<pageID>
4

allegations as true, 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. In addition, a pro 

se litigant “is subject to the relevant law and rules of court including the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 

U.S. 863 (1989).

III. Analysis.

A review of the complaint reflects that no facts are directed to Defendants Peters 

and Streeter. The allegations directed to them are conclusions, legal conclusions, and 

naked assertions. However, in order for a complaint to state a claim, more is required 

than “labels and conclusions,” “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action,” “‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement,’” “a legal conclusion 

couched as factual allegations,” and the “unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmedme accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 

868 (2009). In the place of conclusions, unadorned assertions, or legal phrases, facts 

need to be pled. 

A plaintiff is required to file a complaint that contains a “a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[,]” FED.R.CIV.P.

8(a)(2), “in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the 

grounds upon which it rests[.]’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557, 127 

S.Ct. 1955, 1965-66, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 

47 (1957)). “’It is not enough, to indicate merely that the plaintiff has a grievance but 

sufficient detail must be given so that the defendant, and the Court, can obtain a fair 

idea of what the plaintiff is complaining, and can see that there is some legal basis for 

Case 1:19-cv-00605-KD-MU Document 17 Filed 04/06/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:

<pageID>
5

recovery[,]’” and in order to allow the defendant “to form a responsive pleading” to the 

complaint. L.S.T., Inc. v. Crow, 49 F.3d 679, 683-84 (11th Cir. 1995) (quoting Fullman 

v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 556–57 (11th Cir.1984)). 

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Peters and Streeter do not “contain 

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on 

its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (emphases added) (citation 

omitted). A complaint is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 

allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Id. And the “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right 

to relief above the speculative level” and must be a “‘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 1965-66. Whereas, allegations consisting of “[t]erms like ‘due 

process’ are inherently vague and such claims may rest on a virtually infinite number of 

factual scenarios.” Peterson v. Atlanta Housing Auth., 998 F.2d 904, 912 (11th Cir. 

1993). “It is well-established that such conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a 

§ 1983 claim for relief.” L.S.T., 49 F.3d at 683-84 (citing Fullman, 739 F.2d at 556–57). 

In addition, to state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show a causal connection

between each defendant’s actions, orders, customs, or policies and a deprivation of his 

constitutional or federal rights in order to state a claim. Zatler v. Wainwright, 802 F.2d 

397, 401 (11th Cir. 1986); Williams v. Bennett, 689 F.2d 1370, 1380 (11th Cir. 1982), 

cert. denied, 464 U.S. 932 (1983). A plaintiff can demonstrate this causal connection by 

alleging facts that show what each defendant did to violate his constitutional or federal 

rights or, to state it another way, that show how each defendant was involved in his 

Case 1:19-cv-00605-KD-MU Document 17 Filed 04/06/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:

<pageID>
6

claim for a violation of his constitutional or federal rights. (Generally, a violation of a 

state statute does not demonstrate a violation of the United States Constitution or a 

federal law.)

Facts are necessary so Defendants Peters and Streeter would be advised of the 

claims against them and be able to respond to the claims and so the Court would know 

the nature of the claims against them. However, the only facts contained in the 

complaint are directed to Defendant Tolliver for spraying Plaintiff with a can of mace in a 

locked, confined shower. No facts are contained in the allegations against Defendants 

Peters and Streeter. Plaintiff’s allegations against them are merely conclusions, legal 

conclusions, and bald assertions without any facts offered to support them.

IV. Conclusion.

Therefore, based upon the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that 

Defendants Peters and Streeter be dismissed without prejudice from this action, prior to 

service of process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for Plaintiff’s failure to state 

a claim against them. It is further recommended that Plaintiff be allowed to amend his 

claims against Defendants Peters and Streeter according to the law of Eleventh Circuit 

that allows a pro se plaintiff one chance to amend his complaint before it is dismissed 

“[w]here a more carefully drafted complaint might state a claim[.]” Lee v. Alachua Cty., 

FL, 461 F. App’x 859, 860 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Bank v. Pitt, 928 F.2d 1108, 1112 

(11th Cir. 1991)). However, where the amendment would be futile, the district court 

does not need to allow the amendment. Id.; Carter v. HSBC Mortg. Serv., Inc., 622 F. 

A’ppx 783, 786 (11th Cir. 2015). “Leave to amend a complaint is futile when the 

Case 1:19-cv-00605-KD-MU Document 17 Filed 04/06/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:

<pageID>
7

complaint as amended would still be properly dismissed or be immediately subject to 

summary judgment for the defendant.” Lee, 461 F. App’x at 860. 

If Plaintiff elects to file amended claims against Defendants Peters and Streeter, 

they should be filed on the Court’s § 1983 complaint form and cure the deficiencies 

noted in this Report and Recommendation.2 If Plaintiff fails to use the Court-provided 

form, the Court may strike his claims and dismiss these Defendants. The amended 

claims will replace his prior allegations; therefore, Plaintiff shall not rely on the original 

allegations. The amended claims shall relate to the incident that served as the basis for 

the original allegations. Plaintiff should read the directions contained on the complaint 

form and complete the complaint form in its entirety. The amended claims will be 

subject to the screening provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff is advised that 

the statute of limitations for a § 1983 action filed in Alabama is two years. Lufkin v. 

McCallum, 956 F.2d 1104, 1106, 1108 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 917 (1992). 

The incident about which he complained occurred on February 4, 2018, more than two 

years ago. Thus, if he was to re-file his claims against Defendants Peters and Streeter 

in another action, the re-filed action generally would be barred from going forward by 

the statute of limitations. 

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.

2 The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a § 1983 complaint form. 

Case 1:19-cv-00605-KD-MU Document 17 Filed 04/06/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:

<pageID>
8

72(b); S.D. Ala. Gen.LR 72(c). 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 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 and ORDERED this 6th day of April, 2020.

s/ P. BRADLEY MURRAY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00605-KD-MU Document 17 Filed 04/06/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:

<pageID>