Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00361/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00361-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

 

REGINALD EARL KNIGHT, #170 132, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-361-MHT 

 ) [WO] 

OFFICER TAGGERT, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 This cause of action is pending before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed by 

Plaintiff, an indigent state inmate incarcerated at the Easterling Correctional Facility. Plaintiff 

alleges that on January 7, 2015, while incarcerated at the Montgomery County Detention Center 

in Montgomery, Alabama, Defendant Taggart subjected him to a racial slur and tripped him 

causing him to hurt his knee. After that incident, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Taggart continued to 

subject him to verbal harassment by calling him names. Doc. No. 1 at 2-3. Plaintiff seeks 

damages and requests that Defendant Taggart be removed from his job. Upon review, the court 

concludes this case is due to be summarily dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

II. DISCUSSION 

 To state a viable claim for relief in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, the conduct complained of 

must have deprived Plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution. Am. 

Mfr. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (1999); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981); Willis 

v. Univ. Health Serv., Inc., 993 F.2d 837, 840 (11th Cir. 1993). Derogatory, demeaning, profane, 

threatening or abusive comments made by an officer to an inmate, no matter how repugnant or 

Case 2:15-cv-00361-MHT-WC Document 4 Filed 06/08/15 Page 1 of 4
unprofessional, do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Edwards v. Gilbert, 867 

F.2d 1271, 1274 n.1 (11th Cir. 1989) (mere verbal taunts, despite their distressing nature, 

directed at inmate by jailers do not violate inmate’s constitutional rights); Ayala v. Terhune, 195 

F. App’x 87, 92 (3d Cir. 2006) (“[A]llegations of verbal abuse, no matter how deplorable, do not 

present actionable claims under § 1983.”); McBride v. Deer, 240 F.3d 1287, 1291 n.3 (10th Cir. 

2001) (“[A]cts . . . resulting in an inmate being subjected to nothing more than threats and verbal 

taunts do not violate the Eighth Amendment.”); Sims v. Hickok, 185 F.3d 875 (10th Cir. 1999) 

(district court’s summary dismissal of inmate’s complaint for failure to state a claim appropriate 

because officer’s insults and racial slurs did not amount to a constitutional violation); Ivey v. 

Wilson, 832 F.2d 950, 954-55 (6th Cir. 1987) (verbal abuse alone is not violative of the Eighth 

Amendment); Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1986) (mere name-calling did not 

violate inmate’s constitutional rights); Collins v. Cundy, 603 F.2d 825, 827 (10th Cir. 1979) 

(verbal abuse, including threat of harm, not actionable under § 1983); Aziz Zarif Shabazz v. Pico, 

994 F. Supp. 460, 474 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (finding no constitutional violation by even the most 

reprehensible verbal harassment or profanity). Because this claim lacks an arguable basis in law, 

it is due to be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 

319 (1989). 

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to assert an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim 

regarding his contention that Defendant Taggart tripped him, the claim is without merit. 

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege in any manner that Defendant Taggart’s action was done 

violently or that he suffered any more than de minimis injury. Although the lack of serious 

injury does not preclude an Eighth Amendment claim, the extent of injury suffered is one factor 

to be considered in determining whether the use of force was wanton and unnecessary. Hudson v. 

Case 2:15-cv-00361-MHT-WC Document 4 Filed 06/08/15 Page 2 of 4
McMillian, 503 U.S.1 (1992); see also Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 38 (2010) (“An inmate 

who complains of a ‘push or shove’ that causes no discernible injury almost certainly fails to 

state a valid excessive force claim.”) (quoting Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir. 

1973). Consequently, de minimis uses of physical force do not implicate the Eighth 

Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. 

“Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a 

judge’s chambers, violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights. The Eighth 

Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments necessarily excludes 

from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force, provided the 

use of that force is not of a sort repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” (internal 

quotation marks and parenthesis omitted). 

Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9-10. 

While the conduct about which Plaintiff complains may be described as unprofessional, 

there is nothing before the court which shows it rose above a level of mere de minimis use of 

physical force or that the force used was “of a sort repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” 

Minor amounts of force, even if applied unnecessarily, do not rise to the level of a constitutional 

claim. See Johnson v. Moody, 206 F. App’x 880, 885 (11th Cir. 2006). Taking all of Plaintiff’s 

allegations as true, he still has only established a de minimis use of force which does not offend 

the Eighth Amendment. 

 In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Taggart 

is due to be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

III. CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge this case be 

DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). 

 It is further 

Case 2:15-cv-00361-MHT-WC Document 4 Filed 06/08/15 Page 3 of 4
ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said 

Recommendation on or before June 22, 2015. Any objections filed must specifically 

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party is 

objecting. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered by the 

District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of 

the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. 

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in 

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

District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on 

appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except 

upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 

(5th Cir. 1982); see Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); see 

also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (adopting as 

binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to 

the close of business on September 30, 1981). 

Done this 8th day of June, 2015. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-00361-MHT-WC Document 4 Filed 06/08/15 Page 4 of 4