Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_13-cv-00122/USCOURTS-alsd-1_13-cv-00122-0/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 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STEVEN KEITH GLATFELTER, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

vs. * CIVIL ACTION 13-00122-CG-B

*

SAM COCHRAN, et al., *

*

Defendants. *

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a Mobile County Metro Jail (“jail”) pretrial 

detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a 

Complaint alleging violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This 

action has been referred to the undersigned for appropriate 

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 

72.2(c)(4). It is recommended, prior to service of process, 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) or (ii), that 

Gladfelter’s claims against Defendants Cochran, Oliver, 

Stallworth, and Williams be dismissed with prejudice as 

frivolous; that Gladfelter’s claims against Defendant Barrett 

seeking to impose liability based on others’ actions be 

dismissed with prejudice as frivolous; that Gladfelter’s claims 

against Defendant Barrett for ignoring his requests be dismissed 

without prejudice for failure to state a claim; and that 

Gladfelter’s claims against Defendants Simmons and Ezell be 

Case 1:13-cv-00122-CG-B Document 14 Filed 04/22/14 Page 1 of 17
2

dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted. This action will proceed with 

respect to the remaining Defendants.

I. Amended Complaint. (Doc. 12).

Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint pursuant to the 

Court’s Order (Doc. 11) requiring that he plead an amended 

complaint that contained only one primary claim and any claims 

closely related to it. In his Amended Complaint, Gladfelter

chose to proceed on a claim based on inmate David Webster’s 

assault on him on January 20, 2013 at the jail. (Doc. 12 at 4). 

Gladfelter lists fifteen individuals as Defendants with respect 

to this claim, namely, Sam Cochran, Sheriff of Mobile County, 

Alabama; Trey Oliver, III, Warden of the jail; Officer Rutland, 

an officer at the jail; Sallie Stallworth, a captain/shift 

commander at the jail; Sgt. Bonner, a docket supervisor at the 

jail; Sgt. Pope, a shift commander/floor supervisor; Officer 

Coleman, a security officer at the jail; Sgt. King, a shift 

commander/floor supervisor; Lt. Deming, a shift commander/floor 

supervisor; Marquette Williams, Medical Director at Corizon

Health Service (“Corizon”); Dr. Barrett, medical doctor/staff

supervisor at Corizon; Amy (whose last name is unknown), a 

certified registered nurse practitioner for Corizon; “Dr. P_____ 

“(the spelling of this Defendant’s last name is not known to 

Case 1:13-cv-00122-CG-B Document 14 Filed 04/22/14 Page 2 of 17
3

Plaintiff), a medical doctor/staff supervisor for Corizon; Nurse 

Simmons, a nurse supervisor for Corizon; and Nurse Ezelle, a 

nurse for Nephi-care Health services (“Nephicare”).

Gladfelter alleges that on January 13, 2013, upon his 

arrival at the jail, he was placed in general population. (Id.,

at 3). On January 15, 2013, inmate Webster was placed in the 

“same cell” with him even though he had listed inmate Webster on 

his enemy list on “January 21, 2012[,]” (the year before).

(Id.). According to Gladfelter, when he previously listed 

Webster as a “known enemy,” he was assured by Defendant Bonner 

that “they would not be housed together.” (Id.). Nonetheless, 

in 2013, Gladfelter was housed with inmate Webster, and he 

“notified security staff at [the jail] with verbal and written 

requests to be moved[,]” which were ignored. (Id.). Gladfelter 

contends that although he attempted to avoid a physical 

confrontation with inmate Webster, inmate Webster assaulted him

on January 20, 2013. (Id., at 4). Plaintiff suffered a 

fractured left hand and an injury to his lower lumbar area.

(Id.). 

An unidentified nurse at the jail’s medical clinic examined 

Gladfelter, found him to be “alright,” and dismissed him to 

general population, even though the fracture to his hand “was 

obvious, [in that it was] extremely swollen, blue in color, 

Case 1:13-cv-00122-CG-B Document 14 Filed 04/22/14 Page 3 of 17
4

numb, and horrifically painful.” (Id.). After a while in 

population, Gladfelter pleaded with Defendant Coleman for 

medical assistance for his “obvio[u]s pain and injury.” (Id.). 

Defendant Coleman notified the floor supervisor, Defendant King, 

who denied Gladfelter treatment and began “assaulting Plaintiff 

by grabbing his neck, choking him, cursing him, and subsequently 

shoving him into a cell and threatened . . . further physical 

injury.” (Id.). Defendant King told Gladfelter that he “will 

beat [Plaintiff’s] ass if [Plaintiff] sa[id] one more word.” 

(Id.). Defendant Deming was present for this incident and 

“clearly endorsed the actions of [Defendant] King.” (Id.). They 

then left Gladfelter in the cell. (Id.).

When Gladfelter submitted a sick call request to the clinic

on January 21, 2013, the clinic was under new management, which 

was the result of Defendant Cochran, former jail warden Haley, 

and Defendant Oliver contracting with Corizon to provide medical 

services for the inmates at the jail. (Id.). Defendant Williams 

and Defendant Barrett were now directing the clinic. (Id., at 

5). On January 23, 2013, Gladfelter was finally seen at the 

clinic and had an x-ray taken of his hand, which confirmed that 

it was fractured. (Id.). Defendant Amy, a certified registered 

nurse practitioner, wrapped his left hand with an Ace bandage, 

but his injury to his lower back was not examined. (Id.). 

Case 1:13-cv-00122-CG-B Document 14 Filed 04/22/14 Page 4 of 17
5

Furthermore, a doctor did not examine him. (Id.). Gladfelter 

was released into population, instead of being placed in the 

medically segregated housing unit (“SHU”) where severely injured 

inmates are typically placed because they are deemed vulnerable 

to attacks in population. (Id.). 

Gladfelter made numerous requests on account of his pain 

and suffering, which were ignored, but which eventually resulted 

in in him being sent to the University of South Alabama Medical 

Center on February 11, 2013. (Id.). By this time, Gladfelter’s 

hand had healed with a “gross deformation.” (Id.). At the 

hospital, an orthopedic specialist examined his hand, took xrays, and evaluated it for surgery. (Id.). Gladfelter’s left 

hand, which is his dominant hand, was placed in a cast and he 

was given ibuprofen for pain. (Id.). Gladfelter was then placed 

in SHU. (Id.). 

According to Gladfelter, his lower back was not examined 

until May 17, 2013, when Defendant “Dr. P_____” of Corizon 

examined it. (Id.). He placed Gladfelter on a mild muscle 

relaxer and ibuprofen for a short period of time. (Id.). 

Eventually, the cast was removed with no mention of surgery.

(Id., at 5-6). To date, Gladfelter’s left hand and lower back 

still cause him “undue pain and suffering.” (Id., at 6). The 

new health care provider, Nephi-care, prescribed 1200 milligrams 

Case 1:13-cv-00122-CG-B Document 14 Filed 04/22/14 Page 5 of 17
6

of ibuprofen daily, but it will not provide further medical 

assistance for his injuries. (Id.). Its employee, Defendant 

Ezelle, told Gladfelter that when he is released, he should get 

an examination, as Nephi-Care was not responsible for the 

injury. (Id.). 

For relief, Gladfelter seeks compensatory and punitive 

damages and any and all other relief the Court deems 

appropriate. (Id., at 13).

II. Standards of Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Because Gladfelter is proceeding in forma pauperis, the 

Court is reviewing his Amended Complaint (Doc. 12) under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a claim may be 

dismissed as “frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis in law 

or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S. Ct. 

1827, 1831-32, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989). A claim is frivolous 

as a matter of law where, inter alia, the defendants are immune 

from suit, id., 490 U.S. at 327, or the claim seeks to enforce a 

right that clearly does not exist. Id.

Moreover, a complaint may be dismissed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 

(11th Cir. 1997). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the allegations must 

Case 1:13-cv-00122-CG-B Document 14 Filed 04/22/14 Page 6 of 17
7

show plausibility. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

557, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1966, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). “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.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 

L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). That is, “[f]actual allegations must be 

enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level” 

and must be a “‘plain statement’ possess[ing] enough heft to 

‘sho[w] that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 555, 557 (second brackets in original). But 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 

Furthermore, when a successful affirmative defense, such as a 

statute of limitations, appears on the face of a complaint, 

dismissal for failure to state a claim is also warranted. Jones 

v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215, 127 S. Ct. 910, 920-21, 166 L. Ed.

2d 798 (2007). 

When considering a pro se litigant’s allegations, a court 

gives them a liberal construction holding them to a more lenient 

standard than those of an attorney. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 

519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 595-596, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972). The 

court, however, does not have “license . . . to rewrite an 

Case 1:13-cv-00122-CG-B Document 14 Filed 04/22/14 Page 7 of 17
8

otherwise deficient pleading [by a pro se litigant] in order to 

sustain an action.” GJR Investments v. County of Escambia, Fla., 

132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds 

by Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 710 (11th Cir. 2010) (relying 

on Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662). Furthermore, the court treats as true 

factual allegations, but it does not treat as true conclusory 

assertions or a recitation of a cause of action’s elements. 

Iqbal, 566 U.S. at 681. In addition, a pro se litigant “is 

subject to the relevant law and rules of court including the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 

835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989).

III. Discussion.

At the time Gladfelter’s claims arose in this action, he 

was a pretrial detainee at the jail. (Doc. 12 at 7). As a 

pretrial detainee, his claims are for violations of the Due 

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Goodman v. 

Kimbrough, 718 F.3d 1325, 1331, n.1 (11th Cir. 2013). The 

standards employed by courts under the Fourteenth Amendment are 

identical to standards under the Eighth Amendment. Goebert v. 

Lee Cnty., 510 F.3d 1312, 1326 (11th Cir. 2007). Courts, 

therefore, uses cases arising under either amendment 

interchangeably. See Id.

Case 1:13-cv-00122-CG-B Document 14 Filed 04/22/14 Page 8 of 17
9

A. Defendants Sheriff Cochran, Warden Oliver, and Captain 

Stallworth.

Gladfelter alleges that Defendant Cochran’s employees 

denied him medical treatment after he was assaulted on January 

20, 2013 at the jail. (Doc. 12 at 7). Similarly, he alleges 

that Defendant Oliver’s staff members under his direct

supervision denied and refused Gladfelter medical treatment 

after the assault. (Id.). In addition, Gladfelter alleges that 

employees under Defendant Stallworth’s supervision neglected 

their responsibilities by allowing physical harm to come to him 

and by refusing or denying him access to medical treatment. (Id.

at 9).

Gladfelter is seeking to hold these three supervisory 

officials liable in their supervisory capacities for the actions 

of employees whom they supervise. Holding a defendant liable 

solely for the actions of a subordinate or an employee is not 

recognized as a theory of liability under § 1983. See Monell v. 

Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691-92, 98 S. Ct. 

2018, 2036, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978) (ruling that in a § 1983 

action the city could not be held liable either vicariously or 

under the theory of respondeat superior for the acts of an 

employee). In order to hold a supervisor liable under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, “a plaintiff must allege that the supervisor personally 

participated in the alleged unconstitutional conduct or that 

Case 1:13-cv-00122-CG-B Document 14 Filed 04/22/14 Page 9 of 17
10

there is a causal connection between the actions of a 

supervising official and the alleged constitutional 

deprivation.” Franklin v. Curry, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25515, *6, 

2013 WL 6728101, at *8 (11th Cir. Dec. 23, 2013) (citation 

omitted). Thus, “a plaintiff must plead that each Governmentofficial defendant, through the official’s own individual 

actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. 

The facts that must be alleged “will vary with the 

constitutional provision at issue.” Id. (observing that a claim 

for invidious discrimination requires the plaintiff to “plead 

and prove that defendant acted with discriminatory purpose”). 

In the present action, Gladfelter’s allegations do not 

contain facts that would show a causal connection on the part of

these supervisory officials to a deprivation of Plaintiff’s 

constitutional rights. His allegations instead show that he is 

seeking to hold these supervisory officials liable only because 

they were the supervisors of officers who took the offending 

actions against Plaintiff. And, the only other reference to 

Defendants Cochran and Oliver is that they, along with a former 

jail warden, contracted with Corizon to provide medical care to 

the jail’s inmates, which appears to have been offered only to 

describe the historical succession of the different corporate 

medical providers that employed the individual medical 

Case 1:13-cv-00122-CG-B Document 14 Filed 04/22/14 Page 10 of 17
11

Defendants. (Doc. 12 at 5). Accordingly, the Court finds that 

the claims against Defendants Cochran, Oliver, and Stallworth

are due to be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.

B. Defendant Williams, Medical Director for Corizon.

With regards to Marquette Williams, the medical director 

for Corizon at the jail, Gladfelter alleges that from January 

20, 2013 to February 11, 2013, this Defendant “knowingly and 

willfully supervised the medical clinic and staff members who 

also ignored, denied, and delayed medical treatment to him.

Furthermore, Gladfelter asserts that they allowed him “to remain 

in general population as vulnerable to additional assaults, 

leaving him in undue pain and suffering at Metro [J]ail.” (Doc. 

12 at 11). Gladfelter claims that this was cruel and unusual 

punishment and a “delay/denial of medical treatment.” (Id.). 

Gladfelter‘s only other reference to Defendant Williams is that 

“the medical facility was directed by now ‘former’ medical 

administrator; Marquette Williams and now former Dr. Barrett.” 

(Id. at 4-5).

These allegations against Defendant Williams, at best, 

attempt to hold him liable for the actions of others whom he 

supervised. As discussed above, a defendant in a § 1983 action 

cannot be held liable for actions of another either vicariously 

or on the basis of respondeat superior. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 

Case 1:13-cv-00122-CG-B Document 14 Filed 04/22/14 Page 11 of 17
12

691-92. Thus, the claim against Defendant Williams is due to be 

dismissed with prejudice as frivolous. 

C. Defendant Dr. Barrett.

Gladfelter names Dr. Barrett, who was employed as the 

medical doctor and staff supervisor at Corizon, as a Defendant 

for “knowing[ly] and willfully ignor[ing] specific requests

(written and verbal) to assist plaintiff with his injuries. [He] 

did nothing regarding these injuries.” (Doc. 12 at 11). 

Gladfelter describes this claim as being for cruel and unusual 

punishment and for the denial or delay of medical treatment. 

(Id.). The allegations against Defendant Barrett are similar to 

the claim against Defendant Williams, to the extent that 

Defendant Barrett is identified as a supervisor. However, the 

allegations diverge when Gladfelter claims that Defendant 

Barrett ignored his written and verbal requests for help with 

his injuries, and thereby did nothing to help him. Even though 

these allegations do not seek to hold Defendant Barrett liable 

for the actions of others, these allegations, however, do not 

state a plausible claim against Defendant Barrett.

In order to state a medical claim under § 1983, an inmate 

is required to show that a defendant has been deliberately 

indifferent to his serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 

U.S. 97, 104-5, 97 S. Ct. 285, 291, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1976). To 

Case 1:13-cv-00122-CG-B Document 14 Filed 04/22/14 Page 12 of 17
13

establish deliberate indifference, it must be shown that the 

defendant must both “‘be aware of facts from which the inference 

could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, 

and he must also draw the inference.’” Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 

1235, 1245 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 

at 837). That is, “deliberate indifference has three 

components: (1) subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm; 

(2) disregard of that risk; (3) by conduct that is more than 

mere negligence.” Id. (quoting McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 

1248, 1255 (11th Cir. 1999)).

Gladfelter states that Defendant Barrett “knowingly and 

willfully ignored specific requests.” Even though Gladfelter 

alleges that he made both verbal and written requests, his 

allegations do not contain facts that show Defendant Barrett was 

actually aware of these requests and then deliberately chose to 

ignore them. The Court considers Gladfelter’s use of 

“knowingly,” “willfully,” and “ignore” to be conclusions that 

the Court would draw based on facts that are alleged. 

Furthermore, these allegations are extremely vague and lack the 

specificity required to give fair notice to Defendant Barrett 

and the Court of the precise incident and Defendant Barrett’s 

actions in response. See Harrison v. Benchmark Elecs. 

Huntsville, Inc., 593 F.3d 1206, 1214 (11th Cir. 2010) (“The 

Case 1:13-cv-00122-CG-B Document 14 Filed 04/22/14 Page 13 of 17
14

point is to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is 

and the grounds upon which it rests. A complaint’s factual 

allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level.”) (quotation marks, citations, and brackets 

omitted). Due to the lack of facts to support the allegations, 

Gladfelter’s allegations are merely speculative and fail to 

state a claim that is plausible against Defendant Barrett. 

Therefore, it is recommended that Gladfelter’s claims against 

Defendant Barrett with respect to supervision be dismissed with 

prejudice as frivolous and with respect to ignoring Plaintiff’s 

requests be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted. 

D. Defendant Simmons. 

In addition, Gladfelter alleges that Defendant Simmons, a 

nurse, “ignored requests made to her from plaintiff regarding 

his pain and suffering from injuries[] and housing location of 

general population at Metro jail between the dates of 01-23-13 

and 02-11-2013.” (Doc. 12 at 12). Gladfelter’s allegations lack 

facts showing the specific serious medical need that he 

presented to her and was ignored by her. He also fails to show 

how ignoring his housing location request constituted a 

deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Furthermore, 

facts about Defendant Simmons’ authority and the actions she is 

Case 1:13-cv-00122-CG-B Document 14 Filed 04/22/14 Page 14 of 17
15

capable of taking with respect these allegations were omitted. 

This lack of facts prevents Gladfelter from stating a plausible 

claim against Defendant Simmons. See Iqbal, supra. Here again, 

Gladfelter’s allegations deprive Defendant Simmons and the Court 

of fair notice of his claim against her. See Harrison, supra. 

Accordingly, Gladfelter has failed to state a claim against 

Defendant Simmons upon which relief can be granted. Thus, the 

claims against her are due to be dismissed without prejudice. 

E. Defendant Ezelle.

Another nurse whom Gladfelter has named as a Defendant is 

Mr. Ezelle, an employee of Nephi-care. (Doc. 12 at 12). 

Gladfelter claims that Defendant Ezelle denied him medical 

treatment and inflicted cruel and unusual punishment. (Id.). 

The allegations supporting these claims are as follows: “Nephicare denied all or any responsibility regarding the injuries and 

refuses any further treatment of injuries. All responses [sic] 

regarding any treatment for injuries have been ignored.” (Id.). 

These allegations are confusing in that a description of a 

specific act taken by Defendant Ezelle is not contained in the 

allegations. The allegations supporting the claims refer to 

Nephi-care, not to Defendant Ezelle. And, the claims of denying 

or refusing medical treatment or of inflicting cruel and unusual 

punishment are lacking in specificity so as to show a violation 

Case 1:13-cv-00122-CG-B Document 14 Filed 04/22/14 Page 15 of 17
16

of the Fourteenth Amendment and to give fair notice to Defendant 

Ezelle and the Court of the claims. Thus, Gladfelter’s 

allegations against Defendant Ezelle are merely speculative, and 

the claims against him are due to be dismissed without prejudice

for failure to state a claim because they are not plausible. 

See Iqbal, supra.

IV. Conclusion.

Based upon the foregoing reasons, it is recommended, prior 

to service of process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)

or (ii), that Gladfelter’s claims against Defendants Cochran, 

Oliver, Stallworth, and Williams be dismissed with prejudice as 

frivolous; that his claims against Defendant Barrett seeking to 

impose liability based on others’ actions be dismissed with 

prejudice as frivolous; that his claims against Defendant 

Barrett for ignoring Plaintiff’s requests be dismissed without 

prejudice for failure to state a claim; and that his claims 

against Defendants Simmons and Ezell be dismissed without 

prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted. 

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on 

all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who 

objects to this recommendation or anything in it must, within 

Case 1:13-cv-00122-CG-B Document 14 Filed 04/22/14 Page 16 of 17
17

fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document, file 

specific written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); S.D. ALA. L.R. 72.4. 

The parties should note that under Eleventh Circuit precedent, 

“the failure to object limits the scope of [] appellate review 

to plain error review of the magistrate judge’s factual 

findings.” Dupree v. Warden, Attorney General, State of Alabama,

715 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 2011). In order to be specific, 

an objection must identify the specific finding or 

recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for 

the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s 

report and recommendation where the disputed determination is 

found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or 

refers to the briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not 

specific.

DONE this 22nd day of April, 2014.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00122-CG-B Document 14 Filed 04/22/14 Page 17 of 17