Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_14-cv-00586/USCOURTS-almd-3_14-cv-00586-0/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

EASTERN DIVISION

STACY HARRISON, #221 426, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-586-WKW

) [WO]

COMMISSIONER KIM THOMAS, )

et al., )

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a complaint and

amendment thereto filed by Plaintiff, a state inmate, incarcerated at the Alex City Work

Release Center, in Alex City, Alabama. Plaintiff seeks to challenge the actions of

correctional officials regarding a disciplinary he received in May of 2014 for being in an

unauthorized area including allegations that the contents of the disciplinary record were

falsified and that he wasintentionally treated differently from othersimilarly situated inmates

who received disciplinaries but were not sanctioned to removal from their work release job

and that there was no rational basis for this difference in treatment. Plaintiff names as

defendants Commissioner Kim Thomas, Deputy Commissioner Gwendolyn Mosely, Warden

Joseph Womble, Captain Adair, Sergeant Lovelace, Lieutenant Jackson, Correctional

Officers Young and Estes, and CEO Kim of SL Alabama. Plaintiff seeks monetary

damages, expungement ofthe disciplinary, imposition of criminal charges against all guilty

Case 3:14-cv-00586-WKW-TFM Document 13 Filed 08/13/14 Page 1 of 9
parties, and release of video footage by SL Alabama as evidence. Doc. Nos. 1, 8.

1

Upon review of the complaint and amendment to the complaint, the court concludes

that dismissal of some claims and defendants prior to service of process is appropriate under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).

2

I. DISCUSSION

A. Defendants Thomas and Mosely

Plaintiff names Commissioner Kim Thomas and Deputy Commissioner Gwendolyn

Mosely as defendants alleging he contacted them about threats and violations made against

him regarding the disciplinary in question which they ignored. He further seeks to impose

liability on these defendants for “negligence and inadequate training of staff” which Plaintiff

claims led to the violation of his constitutional rights. These assertions against Defendants

Thomas and Mosely fail to state a claim of constitutional magnitude. See Parratt v. Taylor,

451 U.S. 527,535 (1981) (essential elements of a § 1983 action require that the conduct

complained of was committed by a person acting under state law and that such conduct

deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to see his alleged persecutors punished for their

1

conduct as “a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of

another.” See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973); see also Leeke v. Timmerman, 454

U.S. 83 (1981).

The court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this cause of action. Doc. No. 7. A 2

prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis will have his complaint screened under the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) which requires this 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).

-2-

Case 3:14-cv-00586-WKW-TFM Document 13 Filed 08/13/14 Page 2 of 9
the United States); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 348 (1986) (“the protections of the

Due Process Clause . . . are just not triggered by lack of due care by prison officials”).

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants Thomas and Mosely liable because

of their positions of authority, a plaintiff cannot prevail under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on a

theory of respondeat superior or supervisory liability. Rogers v. Evans, 792 F.2d 1052, 1058

(11 Cir. 1986); H.C. by Hewett v. Jarrard, 786 F.2d 1080 (11 Cir. 1986). Instead a plaintiff

th th

must show that the supervisor participated in the alleged constitutional violation or there is

a causal connection between the actions of the supervising official and the alleged

constitutional deprivation. Id. at 1086-87. “The causal connection can be established when

a history of widespread abuse puts the responsible supervisor on notice of the need to correct

the alleged deprivation, and he fails to do so. The deprivations that constitute widespread

abuse sufficient to notify supervising officials must be obvious, flagrant, rampant and of

continued duration, rather than isolated occurrences.” Brown v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 671

(11 Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). Plaintiff does not allege Defendants Thomas and Mosely

th

were personally involved in any of his alleged constitutional deprivations. Moreover,

Plaintiff's assertions do not establish the causal connection necessary to hold these defendants

responsible for Plaintiff's alleged constitutional deprivations. Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d

1352, 1360 (11 Cir. 2003).

th

B. Defendants Womble, Jackson, Adair, and Young.

Plaintiff complains that Defendant Womble failed to investigate his concerns

-3-

Case 3:14-cv-00586-WKW-TFM Document 13 Filed 08/13/14 Page 3 of 9
regarding the May 2014 disciplinary including his concern about being removed from his

prison job and, instead, passed the matter on to Defendant Jackson who also took no action

regarding Plaintiff’s concerns and approved his disciplinary. Doc. No. 8 at 5, 8. Plaintiff

further asserts Defendant Womble is inadequately trained and relies on Defendants Jackson

and Adair to run the Alex City Work Release Center. DefendantsJackson and Adair, Plaintiff

claims, are, however, also inept at running the facility. Id. at 5-6. Regarding Defendant

Young, Plaintiff claims he failed to testify at his disciplinary hearing. Id. at 7.

Section 1983 creates no federal right or benefit; rather, it provides a remedy for

enforcing a right or benefit established elsewhere. See Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808,

816 (1985). Here, Plaintiff’s contention that Defendants Womble and Jackson failed to

investigate his reports of a false disciplinary, discrimination, and threats by a correctional

officer implicates no constitutional right to which he is entitled. Failing to properly

investigate an inmate’s complaints does not rise to the level of a separate constitutional

violation. Inmates do not enjoy a constitutional right to an investigation of any kind by

government officials. See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S.

189, 196 (1989) (“The Due Process Clauses generally confer no affirmative right to

governmental aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property

interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual.”).

Regarding Plaintiff ’s challenge to Defendant Young’s failure to testify at his

disciplinary hearing, Defendant Jackson’s conduct in approving his disciplinary, and

-4-

Case 3:14-cv-00586-WKW-TFM Document 13 Filed 08/13/14 Page 4 of 9
Defendants Womble’s, Jackson’s, and Adair’s alleged ineptness at running the work release

facility, such claims are subject to dismissal as they are not only generalized and conclusory

but also implicate no constitutional right to which he is entitled. See Fullman v. Graddick,

739 F.2d 553, 556-57 (11 Cir. 1984); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 668 (2009) (citing

th

Bell Atlantic Corp., v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (“[T]he tenet that a court must

accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal

conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

conclusory statements, do not suffice.”); Marsh v. Butler County, 268 F.3d 1014, 1036 n.16

(11 Cir. 2001) (“[U]nsupported conclusions of law or of mixed fact and law have long been

th

recognized not to prevent a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.”). “[A] complaint must contain

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

face.’ 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.” Iqbal., 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Because Plaintiff’s

assertions against Defendants Womble, Jackson, Adair, and Young are insufficient to state

a claim under § 1983, they are due to be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

C. CEO Kim

Plaintiff indicates he names CEO Kim as a defendant because he has custody of video

footage which would support Plaintiff’s version of events regarding the disciplinary about

which he complains. Doc. No. 8 at 8. This is not a basis for naming an individual as a

-5-

Case 3:14-cv-00586-WKW-TFM Document 13 Filed 08/13/14 Page 5 of 9
defendant to a lawsuit. Accordingly, Defendant Kim is due to be dismissed as a party to

the complaint. See American Manufacturers Mutual Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-

50 (1999).

D. Conspiracy

Plaintiff contends the named defendants conspired to violate his constitutional rights

regarding the disciplinary matters about which he complains. To establish a § 1983

conspiracy claim, “a plaintiff must show among other things, that the defendants ‘reached

an understanding to violate [his] rights.’ ” Rowe v. Fort Lauderdale, 279 F.3d 1271, 1283

(11 Cir. 2002) (quoting Strength v. Hubert, 854 F.2d 421, 425 (11 Cir. 1988). This

th th

requires that Plaintiff provide more than a label or a conclusion. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

Plaintiff cannot rely on subjective suspicions and unsupported speculation but must provide

sufficient facts to show that an agreement was made. Id. at 555-56. Besides pleading facts

to show that an agreement was reached to deny Plaintiff's rights, an “‘underlying actual

denial of [his] constitutional rights’” must be shown. Hadley v. Gutierrez, 526 F.3d 1324,

1332 (11 Cir. 2008) (quoting GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359,

th

1370 (11 Cir. 1998).

th

The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's claim of conspiracy. At best, his

assertions are self serving, purely conclusory allegations that fail to assert those material

facts necessary to establish a conspiracy by Defendants. See Fullman, 739 F.2d at 556-57

(holding that a conspiracy allegation that is vague and conclusory fails to state a claim upon

-6-

Case 3:14-cv-00586-WKW-TFM Document 13 Filed 08/13/14 Page 6 of 9
which relief can be granted and may be dismissed). Accordingly, the court concludes that

Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim against the named defendants is due to be dismissed as it is

insufficient to support a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

E. Threats

To the extent Plaintiff complains Defendant Lovelace violated his constitutional rights

by subjecting him to threats during his disciplinary hearing, he is entitled to no relief.

Derogatory, demeaning, profane, threatening or abusive comments made by an officer to

an inmate, no matter how repugnant or unprofessional, do not rise to the level of a

constitutional violation. Edwards v. Gilbert, 867 F.2d 1271, 1274 n.1 (11 Cir. 1989)

th

(mere verbal taunts, despite their distressing nature, directed at inmate by jailers do not

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

th

(verbal abuse, including threat of harm, not actionable under § 1983). Thus, Plaintiff fails

to state a cognizable claim regarding the use of threatening language by a correctional

officer and this claim is, therefore, due to be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

II. CONCLUSION

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

1. Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants Thomas, Mosely, Womble, Adair,

Jackson, Young, and Kim be DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i & ii);

2. Defendants Thomas, Mosely, Womble, Adair, Jackson, Young, and Kim be

-7-

Case 3:14-cv-00586-WKW-TFM Document 13 Filed 08/13/14 Page 7 of 9
DISMISSED as parties to the complaint;

3. Plaintiff’s § 1983 conspiracy claim against all named Defendants be DISMISSED

with prejudice prior to service of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(i);

4. Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim of verbal abuse and/or threats against Defendant Lovelace

be DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(i); and

5. This case with respect to Plaintiff’s remaining claims against Defendants Lovelace

and Estes regarding discrimination and falsifying the disciplinary report be referred to the

undersigned for further proceedings.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before August 28, 2014, Plaintiff may file an objection to the

Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or

general objections will not be considered by the District Court. Plaintiff is advised this

Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.

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

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

District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar a party from attacking

on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation 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

-8-

Case 3:14-cv-00586-WKW-TFM Document 13 Filed 08/13/14 Page 8 of 9
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 13 day of August 2014.

th

/s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-9-

Case 3:14-cv-00586-WKW-TFM Document 13 Filed 08/13/14 Page 9 of 9