Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-1_19-cv-00312/USCOURTS-alnd-1_19-cv-00312-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

MARCO DANE ACOFF,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIAN HOWELL, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-0312-MHH-JEO

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

Plaintiff Marco Acoff, a pretrial detainee housed in the Calhoun County Jail, 

filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Acoff alleges due process 

violations, false imprisonment, illegal arrest, conspiracy, cruel and unusual 

punishment, excessive force, and unconstitutional living conditions. (Doc. 1, p. 3). 

Mr. Acoff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief. (Doc. 1, 

p. 5). Mr. Acoff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2).

Consistent with the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s screening provision, Chief

Magistrate Judge Ott asked Mr. Acoff to show cause why the Court should not 

dismiss this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) under the “three strikes rule” and 

deny the application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3). The PLRA’s three 

strikes rule states:

FILED

 2020 Jan-09 AM 10:43

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 1:19-cv-00312-MHH-SGC Document 18 Filed 01/09/20 Page 1 of 11
2

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in 

a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 

or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, 

brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was 

dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state 

a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a prisoner 

with a history of three or more meritless cases must pay the full filing fee when filing 

a new lawsuit. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002); Vanderberg 

v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2001). Mr. Acoff acknowledges that 

he has three strikes but contends that the PLRA’simminent danger exception enables 

him to proceed without first paying the full filing fee. (Doc. 4). 

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals discussed the “imminent danger” 

exception to the PLRA’s three strikes rule at length in Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 

1344 (11th Cir. 2004). The Court of Appeals stated:

Section 1915(g), the three strikes provision, bars a prisoner, who 

has filed three or more complaints that have been dismissed as frivolous 

or malicious or for failure to state a claim, from filing a complaint in 

forma pauperis, unless the prisoner is “under imminent danger of 

serious physical injury.” Brown does not dispute that he has three 

strikes under section 1915(g). Brown, therefore, may not bring his 

action in forma pauperis unless he is under imminent danger of serious 

physical injury.

Although the Second, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and 

Eleventh Circuits have determined that a prisoner must allege a present 

imminent danger, as opposed to a past danger, to proceed under section 

1915(g), Malik v. McGinnis, 293 F.3d 559 (2d Cir.2002); Abdul–Akbar 

Case 1:19-cv-00312-MHH-SGC Document 18 Filed 01/09/20 Page 2 of 11
3

v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307 (3d Cir.2001) (en banc ); Baños v. O’Guin,

144 F.3d 883 (5th Cir.1998); Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328 (7th 

Cir.2003); Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715 (8th Cir.1998); and 

Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir.1999), only the Third, 

Seventh, and Eighth Circuits have applied the “serious physical injury” 

portion of the exception. See Gibbs v. Cross, 160 F.3d 962 (3d 

Cir.1998); Ciarpaglini, 352 F.3d 328; Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048 

(8th Cir.2003); McAlphin v. Toney, 281 F.3d 709 (8th Cir.2002); 

Ashley, 147 F.3d 715. In Gibbs, the Third Circuit held that the 

prisoner’s allegations that “unidentified dust particles were in his lungs 

and mucus, and that he [was] suffering from severe headaches, watery 

eyes, and a change in his voice as a result” of being placed in a dusty 

cell were sufficient to meet the imminent danger exception. 160 F.3d at 

965. In response to arguments that the allegations of danger were 

speculative, the court stated that “[i]nmates ought to be able to 

complain about ‘unsafe, life-threatening condition[s] in their prison’ 

without waiting for something to happen to them.” Id. Likewise, the 

Seventh Circuit, in Ciarpaglini, held that allegations of “continuing 

harm as a direct result of being denied ... medication” for bipolar 

disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and panic disorder, 

were sufficient to meet the imminent danger exception. 352 F.3d at 330.

In Ciarpaglini, the prisoner alleged that, as a result of the denial of his 

medication, his symptoms returned, and that panic attacks caused him 

to suffer “heart palpitations, chest pains, labored breathing, choking 

sensations, and paralysis in his legs and back.” Id.

The Eighth Circuit addressed the question of serious physical 

injury on three separate occasions. In Ashley, the prisoner alleged that 

prison officials repeatedly placed him in proximity to inmates on his 

enemy alert list and that he was twice attacked, once with a sharpened, 

nine-inch screwdriver and once with a butcher knife, and the court ruled 

that he had alleged imminent danger of serious physical harm. 147 F.3d 

at 717. In McAlphin, the prisoner alleged that he was denied dental 

extractions, that his gums became so infected he eventually needed five 

extractions, and two of the extractions had not been scheduled for six 

months during which time the decay spread. 281 F.3d at 710. When he 

filed the complaint, the two remaining extractions had not been made. 

Id. The court liberally construed the complaint as alleging that the 

prisoner was “in imminent danger of serious physical injury because of 

spreading infection in his mouth,” which satisfied section 1915(g). Id.

Case 1:19-cv-00312-MHH-SGC Document 18 Filed 01/09/20 Page 3 of 11
4

In contrast, in Martin, the court found that a prisoner’s claim of 

imminent danger of serious physical injury failed. The prisoner alleged 

that he was forced to work outside in inclement weather on two 

occasions, once in cold weather without warm clothing and several 

months later in hot weather despite his blood pressure condition. 319 

F.3d at 1050. The complaint also included “conclusory assertions that 

defendants were trying to kill Martin by forcing him to work in extreme 

conditions despite his blood pressure condition.” Id. The Eighth Circuit 

held that “[t]his type of general assertion is insufficient to invoke the 

exception to § 1915(g) absent specific fact allegations of ongoing 

serious physical injury, or of a pattern of misconduct evidencing the 

likelihood of imminent serious physical injury.” Id.

With this persuasive authority in mind, we turn to Brown’s 

complaint, which we must construe liberally and the allegations of 

which we must accept as true. See Jackson v. Reese, 608 F.2d 159, 160 

(5th Cir.1979); Hughes, 350 F.3d at 1159–60. In his complaint, Brown 

alleges that he has HIV and hepatitis. He alleges that on September 5, 

2002, because his condition was deteriorating, he was prescribed 

medications for HIV and hepatitis by Dr. Walton. Brown alleges that, 

on October 30, 2002, Dr. Presnell stopped the prescribed treatment and, 

as a result, Brown suffered prolonged skin and newly developed scalp 

infections, severe pain in the eyes and vision problems, fatigue and 

prolonged stomach pains. In his amended complaint, Brown alleges 

that if not treated he would be exposed to “opportunistic infections, 

such as pneumonia, esophageal candidiasis, salmonella, and wasting 

syndrome,” which would cause him to die sooner. Brown also states 

that he followed the proper grievance procedure, and in response to his 

grievance, was informed that “the physician [had seen him] recently, 

[he would] be seen in the next chronic clinic, [and the warden did] not 

feel that further action [was] warranted.” Liberally construed, Brown 

alleges a total withdrawal of treatment for serious diseases, as a result 

of which he suffers from severe ongoing complications, is more 

susceptible to various illnesses, and his condition will rapidly 

deteriorate.

The defendants offer two rebuttals. The defendants argue that 

these allegations fail to allege imminent danger of serious physical 

injury because skin problems do not constitute serious injury and 

Brown’s allegations of eye problems are too vague. The defendants also 

Case 1:19-cv-00312-MHH-SGC Document 18 Filed 01/09/20 Page 4 of 11
5

argue that, “although [Brown’s] illness may ultimately lead to serious 

physical problems and even death, Brown’s allegations do not show 

that his treatment puts him in imminent danger.” These arguments fail.

Although some of the specific physical conditions about which 

Brown complains may not constitute serious injury, the issue is whether 

his complaint, as a whole, alleges imminent danger of serious physical 

injury. Viewed together, the afflictions of which Brown currently 

complains, including his HIV and hepatitis, and the alleged danger of 

more serious afflictions if he is not treated constitute imminent danger 

of serious physical injury. That Brown’s illnesses are already serious 

does not preclude him from arguing that his condition is worsening 

more rapidly as a result of the complete withdrawal of treatment. The 

amended complaint alleges imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Brown, 387 F.3d at 1349-50. 

The examples that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals discussed in the 

Brown case illustrate that an “imminent danger of serious physical injury” must 

relate to specific, serious threats to the complaining prisoner’s health evidenced by 

physical symptoms or existing threats of imminent physical violence. In his 

response to the magistrate judge’s show cause order, Mr. Acoff contends that the 

imminent danger exception applies because he is fighting physically with cellmates 

for space; because he issleeping on the floor due to overcrowding and, consequently, 

is exposed to rats and poisonous spiders; and because he is inhaling air from vents 

in which black mold is located, causing him to “constantly cough[] and spit[] 

Blackish, Yellow, and Greenish mucus” and suffer upper respiratory problems. 

(Doc. 4, pp. 1-2); (see also Doc. 1, pp. 7, 15, 18) (describing cell overcrowding and 

black mold health issues that prison officials have ignored). 

Case 1:19-cv-00312-MHH-SGC Document 18 Filed 01/09/20 Page 5 of 11
6

In his first motion to amend the complaint, Mr. Acoff describes various 

grievances that he filed with prison officials between February 2019 and March 2019 

concerning black mold and brown recluse spiders. (Doc. 5). In one grievance, Mr. 

Acoff asserts that he “caught a brown recluse spider in [his] bed,” and he asks prison 

officials to spray for spiders. (Doc. 5, p. 3). In another motion to amend his 

complaint, Mr. Acoff alleges that another inmate attacked and stabbed him (Mr. 

Acoff) in the neck and arm in April 2019. (Doc. 11). Mr. Acoff maintains that he 

“made several attempts to notify officers of [the] incident before it happened.” (Doc. 

11, p. 1). Mr. Acoff asserts that without another inmate’s help in “beating on the 

windows to get [the officers’] attention[,]” he (Mr. Acoff) would have died. (Doc. 

11, p. 1). Mr. Acoff contends that “his life is in imminent danger due to the lack of 

officers and safety and security violation(s), etc.” (Doc. 11, pp. 1-2).

Mr. Acoff filed a motion for summary judgment to which he attached the 

following assertions of fact concerning the conditions in which he is living:

1.#) There are no intercoms in the dorm(s) to help notify officers of 

incidents/Fights or health issues which make[] us have to beat down 

doors and windows to get officers[’] attention, which sometimes takes 

hours. 2.#) There is [b]lack mold in [the] showers and vents, that 

regulate air [f]low in [the] [j]ail; [about] which we’ve complained; 

verbally and thr[ough] [g]rievances; and no one/staff has attempted to 

come investigate the problems. 3.#) There [are spiders] ([b]rown 

[r]ecluse[s]) . . . and [r]ats everywhere and they have not investigated 

or tried to com[e] [and] [see] [the] problems. 4.#) Jail is overcrowded 

and we are 3 to 4 people to a cell, which keeps tension among inmates 

[b]ecause of [lack of] space. 5.#) We are sleeping on the [f]loor like 

animals. 6.#) When inspectors come, they make everybody put mat[]s 

Case 1:19-cv-00312-MHH-SGC Document 18 Filed 01/09/20 Page 6 of 11
7

in [the] cells or take away the [p]hones and TVs if we refuse. . . . We 

as the inmates have complained either verbally or [t]hr[ough] the 

[g]rievance proced[ures] to no avail[.] Please help.

(Doc. 6, p. 3). Mr. Acoff and other prisoners certified the truthfulness of these 

allegations under penalty of perjury. (Doc. 6, p. 6; Doc. 6, p. 7, ¶ 27).

Consistent with Brown, the Court has considered Mr. Acoff’s allegations as a 

whole. Brown, 387 F.3d at 1350. Although some of the conditions about which Mr. 

Acoff complains may not rise to the level of a serious, imminent threat to his health,

Mr. Acoff’s allegations about untreated brown recluse spiders in his cell and black 

mold in vents that is causing him to constantly cough up mucus and suffer respiratory 

problems satisfies the imminent danger exception to the three strikes rule. 

According to a medical website, multiple risks are associated with a brown 

recluse spider bite: 

The brown recluse venom is extremely poisonous, even more potent 

than that of a rattlesnake. Yet recluse venom causes less disease than a 

rattlesnake bite because of the small quantities injected into its victims.

The venom of the brown recluse is toxic to cells and tissues.

This venom is a collection of enzymes. One of the specific 

enzymes, once released into the victim's skin, causes 

destruction of local cell membranes, which disrupts the 

integrity of tissues leading to local breakdown of skin, fat, 

and blood vessels. This process leads to eventual tissue 

death (necrosis) in areas immediately surrounding the bite 

site.

The venom also induces in its victim an immune response. 

The victim's immune system releases inflammatory 

agents-histamines, cytokines, and interleukins-that recruit 

Case 1:19-cv-00312-MHH-SGC Document 18 Filed 01/09/20 Page 7 of 11
8

signal specific disease-fighting white blood cells to the 

area of injury. In severe cases, however, these same 

inflammatory agents can themselves cause injury. These 

secondary effects of the venom, although extremely rare, 

can produce these more significant side effects of the 

spider bite:

Destruction of red blood cells

Low platelet count

Blood clots in the capillaries and loss of 

ability to form clots where needed

Acute renal failure (kidney damage)

Coma

Death

https://www.emedicinehealth.com/spider_bite_brown_recluse_spider_bite/article_

em.htm#brown_recluse_bite_causes (last visited Jan. 7, 2019). The seriousness of 

a brown recluse spider bite will depend on many variables, but Mr. Acoff does not 

have to endure a brown recluse spider bite and suffer medical consequences to meet 

the imminent danger exception. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993) 

(explaining that “a prison inmate . . . could successfully complain about 

demonstrably unsafe drinking water without waiting for an attack of dysentery”); 

see also Gibbs, 160 F.3d at 965 (“Inmates ought to be able to complain about 

‘unsafe, life-threatening condition[s] in their prison’ without waiting for something 

to happen to them.”). 

Case 1:19-cv-00312-MHH-SGC Document 18 Filed 01/09/20 Page 8 of 11
9

Mr. Acoff’s allegations about the potentially dangerous mold in the showers 

and the vents at the Calhoun County Jail closely resemble the allegations in Gibbs

(cited with approval in Brown). In Gibbs, the plaintiff complained of being “forced 

to breathe particles of dust and lint which were continuously being dispersed into his 

cell through the ventilation system.” Gibbs, 160 F.3d at 965. The plaintiff alleged 

symptoms of “‘severe headaches, change in voice, mucus that is full of dust and lint, 

and watery eyes.’” Gibbs, 160 F.3d at 965. The plaintiff asserted that “a significant 

possibility” existed that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” 

“depending on the nature of the particles he [was] breathing[.]” Gibbs, 160 F.3d at 

965. The plaintiff alleged that prison staff had not “responded to his request to 

address [the] situation[.]” Gibbs, 160 F.3d at 964. The defendants maintained that 

the plaintiff had alleged a speculative injury. Gibbs, 160 F.3d at 965. The Third 

Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the defendants’ position and explained that the 

imminent danger exception does not require “allegations of an existing serious 

physical injury . . . [;] [i]t is sufficient that the condition poses an imminent danger 

of serious physical injury.” Gibbs, 160 F.3d at 967. 

To proceed, Mr. Acoff must allege not only prison conditions that pose a 

serious threat to his health but also facts showing that the defendants were 

deliberately indifferent to those conditions. 

[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment 

for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the 

Case 1:19-cv-00312-MHH-SGC Document 18 Filed 01/09/20 Page 9 of 11
10

official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or 

safety; the official 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.

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). In his initial complaint, Mr. Acoff 

alleges that he complained to Captain Starr about the black mold in showers and 

exhaust vents, and Captain Starr “never responded” or had the mold removed. (Doc. 

1, p. 18). In his motion to amend his complaint, Mr. Acoff asserts that he complained 

to maintenance twice about mold, once with no response and once with a response 

from “J. Roebuck” that stated “will address,” (Doc. 5, p. 2); he filed a grievance 

about brown recluse spiders and mold” to which J. Luker replied “I will check into 

getting some spray,” (Doc. 5, p. 2); he filed a grievance about the brown recluse 

spider that he caught in his bed to which “I. Chames” replied “we will alert pest 

control,” (Doc. 5, p. 3); and he filed another black mold grievance to which he 

received no response, (Doc. 5, p. 3). 

Captain Starr and I. Chames are named defendants. (Doc. 1, p. 1). Accepting 

Mr. Acoff’s allegations as true at this stage of the action, Mr. Acoff has alleged facts 

that indicate that Captain Starr and I. Chames were aware of the conditions of 

confinement, and Mr. Acoff has alleged facts that indicate that he filed numerous 

requests for help because the defendants did not take steps to address the brown 

recluse spiders or the black mold in vents and in showers. 

Case 1:19-cv-00312-MHH-SGC Document 18 Filed 01/09/20 Page 10 of 11
11

Therefore, Mr. Acoff’s prison condition allegations concerning black mold 

and brown recluse spiders meet the PLRA’s imminent danger exception to the three 

strikes rule, and the Court grants Mr. Acoff’s in forma pauperis motion to pursue 

those claims. (Doc. 2). The Court grants Mr. Acoff’s motion to amend his complaint

with respect to the allegations relating to conditions of confinement (Doc. 5, pp. 1-

3) but denies without prejudice the remainder of that motion. The Court denies 

without prejudice Mr. Acoff’s remaining motions to amend and his conspiracy 

motion. (Docs. 10, 11, 16, 17). The Court denies Mr. Acoff’s motions for summary 

judgment without prejudice. (Docs. 6, 8, 9, 15). The Court strikes from Mr. Acoff’s 

complaint allegations that do not relate to the mold and brown recluse spider 

conditions at the Calhoun County Jail. 

If Mr. Acoff wants to add defendants, allegations, or claims to his lawsuit

unrelated to the black mold and brown recluse spider issues, then he may file an 

amended complaint accompanied by payment of the full filing fee. 

The Court does not have the power to change the venue of Mr. Acoff’s 

criminal cases and denies Doc. 14 as moot. 

The Court refers this matter to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 

DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of January, 2019.

 _________________________________

 MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00312-MHH-SGC Document 18 Filed 01/09/20 Page 11 of 11