Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00520/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00520-0/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 MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

KENDRICK COOK-BEY, # 174 046, )

A/K/A Kendrick Cook, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-520-WKW

) [WO]

MICHAEL STRICKLAND, WARDEN, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections. He files

this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging interference or delay with the receipt of his mail 

by Defendants Commissioner Jefferson Dunn, Warden Michael Strickland, and Lieutenant 

Jackson.

1 Doc. 9. Upon review, the court concludes that dismissal of the amended complaint 

against Defendants Dunn and Strickland prior to service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B).2 

I. DISCUSSION

A. Commissioner Dunn

Plaintiff names Commissioner Dunn as a defendant but makes no allegations against this

																																																												 1 In accordance with the prior proceedings and orders of the court, this matter is before the 

undersigned on Plaintiff’s amended complaint filed October 24, 2016. See Docs. 7 & 9. 

2 A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint 

screened in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening 

procedure requires the court to dismiss a prisoner’s civil action prior to service of process if it 

determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

Case 2:16-cv-00520-WKW-GMB Document 14 Filed 11/01/16 Page 1 of 5
2

individual. To the extent Commissioner Dunn is named as a defendant based on his supervisory 

position, supervisory personnel cannot be liable under § 1983 for a constitutional violation of one 

of their subordinates via a theory of respondeat superior or on the basis of vicarious liability. See 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (holding that doctrine of respondeat superior is 

inapplicable to § 1983 actions); Belcher v. City of Foley, 30 F.3d 1390, 1396 (11th Cir. 1994) 

(holding that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not allow a plaintiff to hold supervisory officials liable for the 

actions of their subordinates under either a theory of respondeat superior or vicarious liability); 

Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding that a supervisory official is liable 

only if he “personally participate[d] in the alleged unconstitutional conduct or [if] there is a causal 

connection between [his] actions . . . and the alleged constitutional deprivation”); Kilgo v. Ricks, 

983 F.2d 189, 194 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding the prison commissioner’s dismissal was proper 

because no personal involvement or policy by the department was alleged). Moreover, other than 

naming Commissioner Dunn in the caption of his complaint, Plaintiff makes no allegations against 

him nor does he indicate this defendant was personally involved in the constitutional violations 

about which he complains. See Potter v. Clark, 497 F.2d 1206, 1207 (7th Cir. 1974) (holding that 

court properly dismissed pro se complaint that was silent as to a defendant except for his name 

appearing in caption). Accordingly, the court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant

Dunn is subject to dismissal on this basis as well. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

B. Warden Strickland

Plaintiff states that on May 19, 2016 he wrote to Warden Strickland regarding a delay he 

experienced in receiving his mail. Plaintiff’s amended complaint provides no other factual 

allegations or claims against this defendant. Doc. 9 at 3. 

Two elements are essential to sustaining an action under § 1983. Specifically, a plaintiff 

Case 2:16-cv-00520-WKW-GMB Document 14 Filed 11/01/16 Page 2 of 5
3

must demonstrate that: (1) he suffered a deprivation of “rights, privileges or immunities secured 

by the Constitution and laws” of the United States; and (2) the act or omission causing the 

deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 

(1988). To state a claim, a plaintiff must show a specific constitutional or federal guarantee 

safeguarding the interests that have been violated. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 696–97 (1976). 

Where no underlying constitutional right exists, a § 1983 claim will not lie. Wideman v. 

Shallowford Comm. Hosp., Inc., 826 F.2d 1030, 1032 (11th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff’s allegations

regarding Warden Strickland fail to identify the infringement of any constitutional right to which 

Plaintiff is entitled. 

To the extent Plaintiff names Warden Strickland as a defendant based on a theory of 

respondeat superior, as explained above, a § 1983 action will not support a claim under this theory. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676; Belcher, 30 F.3d at 1396. The Iqbal Court clarified that a government 

official sued in his or her individual capacity for alleged constitutionally tortious behavior cannot 

be held liable on a respondeat superior theory or on the basis of some general connection to 

allegedly responsible individuals or actions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676–77 (“Government officials 

may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of 

respondeat superior . . . [A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through 

the official’s own actions, has violated the Constitution . . . .”); see Greason v. Kemp, 891 F.2d 

829, 836 (11th Cir. 1990) (explaining that a supervisor “can be held liable under section 1983 

when a reasonable person in the supervisor’s position would have known that his conduct infringed 

the constitutional rights of the plaintiff, and his conduct was causally related to the constitutional 

violation committed by his subordinate”) (citations and footnote omitted). Rather, the language 

of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires proof of an affirmative causal connection between the actions taken 

Case 2:16-cv-00520-WKW-GMB Document 14 Filed 11/01/16 Page 3 of 5
4

by a defendant and the alleged constitutional deprivation. Swint v. City of Wadley, Ala., 51 F.3d 

988, 999 (11th Cir. 1995). 

Here, there is no indication by Plaintiff of any facts showing purposeful personal 

involvement in any manner by Warden Strickland. Plaintiff has not alleged this defendant 

participated in or directed any of the misconduct about which he complains. Without personal 

involvement, Warden Strickland may not be held liable. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. 

II. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. Plaintiff’s § 1983 amended complaint against Defendants Commissioner Jefferson 

Dunn and Warden Michael Strickland be DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii);

2. Defendants Commissioner Jefferson Dunn and Warden Michael Strickland be 

DISMISSED as parties to the amended complaint;

3. This case be referred to the undersigned for further proceedings.

It is further ORDERED that on or before November 15, 2016, Plaintiff may file an 

objection to the Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the factual 

findings and legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which Plaintiff 

objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. 

This recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations in the 

Magistrate Judge’s report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of 

factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall “waive the right to challenge on 

appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions” except upon 

grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust 

Case 2:16-cv-00520-WKW-GMB Document 14 Filed 11/01/16 Page 4 of 5
5

Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 

790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).

DONE on this 1st day of November, 2016. 

/s/ Gray M. Borden 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00520-WKW-GMB Document 14 Filed 11/01/16 Page 5 of 5