Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-7_12-cv-03503/USCOURTS-alnd-7_12-cv-03503-1/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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

WESTERN DIVISION

RANDOLPH WAYNE PARKER, JR. )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 7:12-cv-03503-RDP-RRA

)

KIM THOMAS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on February 6, 2013,

recommending that all claims in this action, except the excessive force claim against

Defendants White, Butler, and Fulgham, be dismissed without prejudice for failing to state

a claim upon which relief can be granted. It was further recommended that the remaining

excessive force claim against Defendants White, Butler, and Fulgham be referred to the

Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

Plaintiff hassubmittedObjectionsto theReport and Recommendation. (Doc.’s #9-12). 

He asserts that the Magistrate Judge erred in dismissing the medical claimagainst Lieutenant

Butler (“Butler”), whom he contends ignored his request for medical attention during the

lunchtime meal on September 15, 2012. (Doc.’s #9-10). However, as the Magistrate Judge

pointed out, there is nothing in the complaint (or Plaintiff’s Objections) which shows that

Plaintiff was prevented by Butler from approaching medical personnel about his problem. 

In fact, Plaintiff states in the complaint that he turned in another sick call request and

FILED

 2013 Mar-18 PM 01:17

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 7:12-cv-03503-RDP-JHE Document 13 Filed 03/18/13 Page 1 of 5
received medical attention on September 27, 2012. Additionally, Plaintiff states in his

objections that he was seen by medical personnel again on October 10, 2012. Although the

facts alleged in the Complaint show that Butler may have on that one occasion ignored

Plaintiff’s comments about his need to see a doctor, there are no allegations which show that

Butler actually interfered with or prevented Plaintiff fromobtaining medical treatment on his

own. 

“[S]ection 1983 requires proof of an affirmative causal connection between the

actions taken by a particular person under color of state law and the constitutional

deprivation.” LeMarca v. Turner, 995 F.2d 1526, 1538 (11th Cir. 1993), quoting Williams

v. Bennett, 689 F.2d 1370, 1380 (11th Cir. 1982). In other words, Plaintiff must prove that

Defendant’s acts or omissions were the proximate cause of any injuries. LaMarca, at

1538-39. Therefore, in reviewing a § 1983 claim against government officials, this court

must focus its inquiry “on whether an official’s acts or omissions were the cause – not merely

a contributing factor – of the constitutionally infirm condition.” Id. In this instance, to the

extent Plaintiff was denied adequate medical care for his back injury, there are no facts pled

which plausibly show that Lieutenant Butler’s actions on September 15, 2012, were a

proximate cause of the alleged denial of care.1

Plaintiff’s Complaint must be viewed in light of Defendants’ qualified immunity and the 1

plausibility requirements set forth by the Supreme Court in Twombly and Iqbal. Although courts are required

to construe pro se complaintsliberally, the complaint must nevertheless allege facts fromwhich the inference

of a constitutional violation is “plausible,” not merely speculative. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544 (2007). “[T]he complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (quoting Twombly). To speculate

about the possibility of a claim not only fails to comport with Rule 8(a) pleading standards, but also would

2

Case 7:12-cv-03503-RDP-JHE Document 13 Filed 03/18/13 Page 2 of 5
Plaintiff further objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the Complaint fails to

state a claim of retaliation against Butler in connection with disciplinary charges asserted

after the September 10, 2012, incident. (Doc. #11). In his objections, Plaintiff points to

several alleged violations of Department of Corrections’ regulations as proof that he was not

afforded adequate due process in connection with the disciplinary proceedings. However,

the mere fact that an agency has violated its own regulations does not, by itself, raise a

constitutional issue. U.S. v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 751-52 (1979); Magluta v. Samples, 375

F.3d 1269, 1279 n. 7 (11th Cir. 2004). In any event, the Magistrate Judge correctly

concluded that Plaintiff’s allegations of retaliation are conclusory. Plaintiff’s attempts to

assert due process issues in his objections has no bearing on that finding. Additionally,

where, as here, a prisoner alleges the retaliation was in the form of a disciplinary action, his

claim is precluded if he was found guilty of an actual violation of prison rules. Henderson

v. Baird, 29 F.3d 464 (8th Cir. 1994); Crittendon v. Campbell, 2007 WL 2853398, at *7

(M.D. Ala. Sept. 27, 2007). 

Finally, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the Complaint fails to

state a claim for denial of access to the courts. (Doc. #12). Plaintiff contends that he suffered

actual injury as a result of having been denied access to the prison law library for a period

prematurely vitiate Defendants’ qualified immunity, an immunity that protects Defendants from the burden

of even responding to Plaintiff’s complaint.

3

Case 7:12-cv-03503-RDP-JHE Document 13 Filed 03/18/13 Page 3 of 5
of time in September 2012. He alleges that he was unable to adequately prepare for a

2

hearing on a motion for new trial in the Baldwin County Circuit Court. Plaintiff’s

contentions in that regard are frivolous. It is clear from Plaintiff’s exhibit (Doc. #12, p. 9)

that the hearing to which he refers did not occur until January 8, 2013, approximately four

months after he was allegedly denied access to the prison library and three months after this

action was filed. Any alleged connection between a temporary denial of library privileges

in September 2012 and a denial of a state court motion in January 2013 is tenuous. 

Accordingly, having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in

the court file, including the Report and Recommendation and the Objections thereto, the

court is of the opinion that the Magistrate Judge’s Report is due to be and is hereby

ADOPTED and the Recommendation is ACCEPTED. It is therefore ORDERED that all

of Plaintiff’s claims in this action, except the excessive force claim against Defendants

White, Butler, and Fulgham, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE forfailing to state

a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The

excessive force claim against Defendants White, Butler, and Fulgham is REFERRED to the

Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order upon Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff alleges the denial of library access occurred from September 6, 2012, to September 30, 2

2012. (Doc. #1, p. 7, ¶ 16). 

4

Case 7:12-cv-03503-RDP-JHE Document 13 Filed 03/18/13 Page 4 of 5
DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of March, 2013.

___________________________________

R. DAVID PROCTOR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

5

Case 7:12-cv-03503-RDP-JHE Document 13 Filed 03/18/13 Page 5 of 5