Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00847/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00847-0/pdf.json

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

---

1A 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). 

Thus, notwithstanding payment of the filing fee or any initial partial filing fee, this court must dismiss a

case prior to service of process if the court determines that the action is subject to dismissal under the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii) or (iii).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 __________________________________

JIMMIE BOZEMAN, #163 240 *

Plaintiff, *

 v. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-847-T

(WO)

OFFICER ARTIS JAMES, et al., *

Defendants. *

 __________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, Jimmie Bozeman, is an inmate incarcerated at the Bullock County

Correctional Facility. He brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Correctional

Officers James, Ellis, Blue, and Curry. Upon review of Plaintiff’s complaint, the court finds

that it should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1

I. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff complains that Officer James is harassing him about his sex life with other

Case 2:05-cv-00847-MHT-VPM Document 4 Filed 10/04/05 Page 1 of 4
 

2Although Neitzke interpreted the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the predecessor to §

1915(e)(2), the analysis contained therein remains applicable to the present statute.

2

inmates. Plaintiff contends that such matters are his personal business and are of no concern

to Officer James or anyone else. (Doc. No. 1.) 

Although prisoners have a right to be free from sexual abuse, whether at the hands of

fellow inmates or prison guards, Women Prisoners of the Dist. of Columbia Dept. of

Corrections, 877 F. Supp. 634, 665 (D.D.C.1994), the Eighth Amendment protections do not

necessarily extend to mere verbal sexual harassment. Although issues may be posited

regarding the officer’s judgment in engaging in the alleged conduct, it still amounts to verbal

harassment. Thus, even if the plaintiff’s allegations are true, he has not stated a cause of

action under Eighth Amendment.

The law is settled that verbal harassment and abuse and mere threatening language

and gestures of a custodial officer do not amount to a constitutional violation. See Bender

v. Brumley, 1 F.3d 271, 274 n.4 (5th Cir. 1993); McFadden v. Lucas, 713 F.3d 143, 146 (5th

Cir. 1983); Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2nd Cir. 1973); see also Blueford v.

Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 254-55 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that prison guard who engaged in

“vulgar same-sex trash talk” with inmates was entitled to qualified immunity). 

Consequently, the conduct Plaintiff attributes to Defendant James will not support a claim

of violation of his constitutional rights. Because this claim lacks an arguable basis in law,

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

319 (1989).2 

Case 2:05-cv-00847-MHT-VPM Document 4 Filed 10/04/05 Page 2 of 4
3

II. CONCLUSION

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

be DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the directives of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The defendants should not construe this Recommendation as the

court’s endorsement of the conduct alleged by the plaintiff; the conclusions in this

Recommendation are limited to the substantive deficiency of the plaintiff’s attempt to state

a constitutional claim. 

 It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said

Recommendation on or before 19 October, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. 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

Case 2:05-cv-00847-MHT-VPM Document 4 Filed 10/04/05 Page 3 of 4
4

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done this 4th day of October, 2005.

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00847-MHT-VPM Document 4 Filed 10/04/05 Page 4 of 4