1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

CHRISTOPHER ALLEN 

PRIDMORE 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

GWENDOLYN MOSLEY, ET AL. 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 

 CASE NO.: 2:06-CV-778-MEF 

SPECIAL REPORT

COME NOW the Defendants, Gwendolyn Mosley and Richard Allen, by and 

through undersigned counsel, and in accordance with this Honorable Court’s June 23, 

2004 Order, offer the following written report. 

PARTIES

1. The Plaintiff, Christopher Allen Pridmore, is an inmate of the Alabama Prison 

System.

2. Defendant Gwendolyn Mosley is a Correctional Warden III, employed by the 

Department of Corrections, and currently assigned to Easterling Correctional Facility.

3. Defendant Richard Allen is Commissioner of the Alabama Department of 

Corrections. 

4. Defendant Kathy Holt is Director of Central Records for the Alabama Department of 

Corrections.

EXHIBIT

EXHIBIT 1 – Affidavit of Gwendolyn Mosley 

Case 2:06-cv-00778-MEF-WC Document 9 Filed 10/10/2006 Page 1 of 9
2

 PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

Plaintiff claims that the Defendants have deliberately and indifferently denied him 

proper medical attention in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights under the United 

States Constitution, and that he has been denied proper access to the courts. The Plaintiff 

claims only equitable relief. 

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE

1. The Defendants deny that they violated the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

2. The Defendants deny each and every material allegation not specifically admitted 

herein and demand strict proof thereof. 

3. The Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

4. The Plaintiff makes no specific allegations against Warden Mosley or 

Commissioner Allen. 

5. The Defendants are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the 

United States Constitution. 

6. The Defendants are immune from suit due to qualified immunity. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff was assigned to Easterling Correctional Facility on June 6, 2006. 

Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Darbouze in the Health Care Unit of Easterling on August 8, 

2006. At that time, Plaintiff requested a bottom-bunk profile due to pain in his left knee. 

Dr. Darbouze did not find it medically necessary to give Plaintiff a bottom-bunk profile. 

Defendants Mosley and Allen do not possess sufficient knowledge, and they have no 

reason to question the professional judgment of Dr. Darbouze. Plaintiff claims that 

diabetic inmates are to use a cleanser for sensitive skin. Defendants Mosley and Allen do 

Case 2:06-cv-00778-MEF-WC Document 9 Filed 10/10/2006 Page 2 of 9
3

not possess sufficient knowledge, evidence, or information indicating that diabetic 

inmates are to use non-soap cleanser for sensitive skin. See, Exhibit 1. 

Easterling’s Law Library is open on Tuesday through Friday from 12:00 PM to 

7:30 PM and Saturday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. Inmates that use the Law Library are 

allowed to use it when their assigned dormitory has yard and gym call. Inmates that need 

additional time can request for the time by submitting a request to the Law Library 

Officer. Plaintiff has not been denied access to the courts. See, Exhibit 1. 

ARGUMENT

It is well-settled that to establish liability under § 1983 for inadequate medical 

treatment, a prisoner must show that the failure to provide him medical care amounted to 

cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the United States 

Constitution. See Estelle v. Gamble, 97 S.Ct. 285, 292 (1976). That is, a prisoner must

show his inadequate care arose from a “deliberate indifference to [his] serious medical 

needs.” Id. at 291. This standard encompasses both objective and subjective components. 

First, the prisoner must prove an objectively serious medical need, “one that has been 

diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay 

person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention.” Farrow v. West, 320 

F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir.2003) (quotation and citation omitted). Second, the prisoner 

must show the prison official acted with deliberate indifference to that need. To establish 

the requisite deliberate indifference, “the prisoner must prove three facts: (1) subjective 

knowledge of a risk of a serious harm; (2) disregard of that risk; and (3) by conduct that 

is more than mere negligence.” Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1351 (11th Cir.2004). 

Put generally, deliberate indifference is medical treatment that is “so grossly 

Case 2:06-cv-00778-MEF-WC Document 9 Filed 10/10/2006 Page 3 of 9
4

incompetent, inadequate, or excessive as to shock the conscience or to be intolerable to 

fundamental fairness.” Rogers v. Evans, 792 F.2d 1052, 1058 (11th Cir.1986). 

“[D]eliberate indifference is a stringent standard of fault, requiring proof that [the] actor 

disregarded a known or obvious consequence of his action.” Bd. of County Comm'rs v. 

Brown, 117 S.Ct. 1382, 1391 (1997). See also Adams v. Poag, 61 F.3d 1537, 1543 (11th 

Cir.1995). 

There is simply no evidence that can serve as a basis for Plaintiff’s complaints 

against Warden Mosley or Commissioner Allen. Plaintiff has made no allegations that he 

was ever subjected to a serious risk of harm, much less that either of these Defendants 

possessed sufficient subjective knowledge of such a serious risk and with deliberate 

indifference consciously chose to disregard such a serious risk. Plaintiff has failed to 

provide, and cannot provide, the court with sufficient facts to raise his complaint to the 

level of an even arguable constitutional violation.

Furthermore, in establishing liability pursuant to § 1983, a prisoner cannot rely on 

theories of vicarious liability or respondeat superior. See Cook ex rel. Estate of Tessier v. 

Sheriff of Monroe County, Fla., 402 F.3d 1092, 1115-16 (11th Cir.2005). Section 1983 

requires proof of an affirmative causal link between the official's acts or omissions and 

the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Zatler v. Wainwright, 802 F.2d 397, 401 (11th 

Cir.1986). The causal connection may be proven by showing the official (1) was 

personally involved in the acts or omissions which resulted in the constitutional 

deprivation; (2) established a policy or custom that resulted in the constitutional 

deprivation; or (3) breached a duty imposed by state or local law. Id. Plaintiff has 

Case 2:06-cv-00778-MEF-WC Document 9 Filed 10/10/2006 Page 4 of 9
5

produced no facts that would give rise to either of these Defendants being held 

responsible for the acts of others. 

Supervisory officials are entitled to rely on medical judgments made by medical 

professionals responsible for prisoner care. See, e.g., Durmer v. O'Carroll, 991 F.2d 64, 

69 (3d Cir.1993); White v. Farrier, 849 F.2d 322, 327 (8th Cir.1988). Warden Mosley 

and Commissioner Allen rely on the professional medical judgments of the persons and 

entities that have contracted with the State of Alabama’s Department of Corrections to 

provide medical care to the State’s inmates. Plaintiff has offered no evidence that he was 

at serious risk of harm or that any of the judgments of the health care providers was 

anything but correct. 

With regard to Plaintiff’s claim of an improper denial of access to the courts, “the 

fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to ... 

provid[e] prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons 

trained in the law.” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 1498, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 

(1977). The Supreme Court, however, has clarified that prisoners' contentions of 

deprivations of access to courts must show actual injury as a "constitutional prerequisite." 

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 2180, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). While 

Bounds guarantees the right of access to the courts under the Fourteenth Amendment, 

prisoners have no inherent or independent right of access to a law library or to legal 

assistance. Wilson v. Blankenship, 163 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 1998); See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 

349-51, 116 S.Ct. at 2179-80. Instead, they must show actual injury in the pursuit of 

specific types of nonfrivolous cases: direct or collateral attacks on sentences and 

challenges to conditions of confinement. Id. at 355-57, 116 S.Ct. at 2182. For example, 

Case 2:06-cv-00778-MEF-WC Document 9 Filed 10/10/2006 Page 5 of 9
6

in Lewis, the court noted actual injury could be missing filing deadlines or being 

prevented from presenting claims. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348, 116 S.Ct. at 2178. 

"Impairment of any other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and perfectly 

constitutional) consequences of conviction and incarceration." Id. at 355, 116 S.Ct. at 

2182. 

As stated above, Plaintiff first must show actual injury before seeking relief under 

Bounds. See Bass v. Singletary, 143 F.3d 1442 (11th Cir.1998). This is an essential 

standing requirement. Wilson v. Blankenship, 163 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 1998). It is 

interpreted by the 11th Circuit as meaning that any prison officials' actions that allegedly 

violate an inmate's right of access to the courts must have impeded the inmate's pursuit of 

a nonfrivolous, post-conviction claim or civil rights action. Wilson, 163 F.3d at 1290. To 

prevail in this case, Plaintiff must provide evidence of “. . . such deterrence, such as a 

denial or dismissal of a direct appeal, habeas petition, or civil rights case that results from 

actions of prison officials.” Wilson, 163 F.3d at 1291. Therefore, in an access-to-courts 

claim, Plaintiff cannot merely allege that his access to the law library, equipment and 

supplies is limited but rather, Plaintiff must demonstrate that the limitations of his access 

hindered his "efforts to proceed with a legal claim in a criminal appeal, postconviction 

matter, or civil rights action seeking to vindicate basic constitutional rights." Wilson, 163 

F.3d at 1291. Plaintiff has utterly failed to do this in this case. 

This case should also be dismissed because the Defendants are immune from suit. 

The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[t]he judicial 

power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, 

commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or 

Case 2:06-cv-00778-MEF-WC Document 9 Filed 10/10/2006 Page 6 of 9
7

by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.” The Amendment therefore not only bars 

suits against a state by citizens of another state, but also bars suits against a state by that 

state’s own citizenry. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663, 94 S. Ct. 1347, 1355 

(1974) and Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 13-15, 10 S. Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890). 

The Eleventh Amendment also prohibits suit against state officials and employees where 

the state is the real, substantial party in interest. See Pennhurst State School & Hospital 

v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 101-02, 104 S. Ct. 900, 908-09, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984). “For 

example, if a lawsuit seeks to order the state officer to pay funds directly from the state 

treasury for the wrongful acts of the state, then the state is the real party in interest and 

the Eleventh Amendment bars the suit.” Summit Medical Associates, P.C. v. Pryor, 180 

F.3d 1326, 1336 (11th Cir. 1999). This suit is in reality a suit against the State; thus, the 

Defendants should be dismissed based on immunity. 

In addition, the Defendants are protected by qualified immunity. As stated by the 

Eleventh Circuit, “[q]ualified immunity protects government officials from civil trials 

and liability when their conduct in performing discretionary functions ‘violates no clearly 

established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have 

known.’” Wilson v. Blankenship, 163 F.3d 1284, 1288 (11th Cir. 1998) (quoting Lassiter 

v. Alabama A & M Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 28 F.3d 1146, 1149 (11th Cir. 1994) (en banc)). 

Wilson, supra (holding that the marshal, wardens, and corrections officer were protected 

by qualified immunity); see also Pinkney v. Davis, 952 F. Supp. 1561 (M.D. Ala. 1997) 

(holding that wardens, deputy warden, and other prison officials were entitled to qualified 

immunity). The Eleventh Circuit has held that “[p]rison officials have ‘wide-ranging 

deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment 

Case 2:06-cv-00778-MEF-WC Document 9 Filed 10/10/2006 Page 7 of 9
8

are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional 

security.’” Wilson, 163 F.3d at 1295, quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547, 99 S.Ct. 

1861, 1878 (1979). The Defendants have not violated Pridmore’s clearly established 

rights; thus, they are entitled to qualified immunity. 

CONCLUSION

 There are no genuine issues of material fact, and the Defendants Gwendolyn 

Mosley and Richard Allen are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. WHEREFORE, 

these Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court dismiss the claims 

against them. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 TROY KING (KIN047) 

 Attorney General 

 /s/ Benjamin H. Albritton

 Benjamin H. Albritton (ALB003) 

 Assistant Attorney General 

 

ADDRESS OF COUNSEL: 

Office of the Attorney General 

11 South Union Street 

Montgomery, AL 36130 

(334) 242-7300 

Case 2:06-cv-00778-MEF-WC Document 9 Filed 10/10/2006 Page 8 of 9
9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have, this the 10th day of October, 2006, served a copy of 

the foregoing upon the Plaintiff by placing same in the United States Mail, postage 

prepaid and properly addressed as follows: 

Christopher Pridmore, #139858 

Easterling Correctional Facility 

200 Wallace Drive 

Clio, AL 36017 

 /s/ Benjamin H. Albritton

 Benjamin H. Albritton 

Assistant Attorney General 

 

Case 2:06-cv-00778-MEF-WC Document 9 Filed 10/10/2006 Page 9 of 9
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

CHRISTOPHER A. PRIDEMORE, #139858) 

 Plaintiff ) 

) 

 VS. ) CIVIL ACTION 2:06-CV-778-MEF 

) 

GWENDOLYN MOSLEY, et.al. ) 

) 

 Defendants. ) 

AFFIDAVIT 

Before me, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for 

said County and State of Alabama at Large, personally appeared 

Gwendolyn Mosley, who being known to me and being by me first duly 

sworn, deposes and says under oath as follows: 

My name is Gwendolyn Mosley and I am presently employed as a 

Correctional Warden III, employed by the Department of Corrections, 

Easterling Correctional Facility, 200 Wallace Dr., Clio, AL 36017. I 

am over twenty-one (21) years of age. 

 Inmate Christopher Pridemore, #139858, was assigned to Easterling 

Correctional Facility on June 6, 2006. According to our Health Care 

Unit, Health Service Administrator (HSA) Ms. Kay Wilson, inmate 

Pridemore was seen by Dr. Darbouze on August 8, 2006. At that time, 

he requested a bottom-bunk profile due to pain in his left knee. Dr. 

Darbouze did not find it medically necessary to give inmate Pridemore 

a bottom-bunk profile. Inmate Pridemore claims that diabetic inmates 

are to use a cleanser for sensitive skin. I have seen no evidence or 

information stating that diabetic inmates are to use non-soap cleanser 

for sensitive skin. 

 

Case 2:06-cv-00778-MEF-WC Document 9-2 Filed 10/10/2006 Page 1 of 2
Affidavit – Gwendolyn Mosley 

Civil Action #2:06-CV-778-MEF 

Page 2 

Our Law Library is open on Tuesday-Friday from 12:00 PM to 7:30 

PM and Saturday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. Inmates that use the Law 

Library are allowed to use it when their assigned dormitory has yard 

and gym call. Inmates that need additional time can request for the 

time by submitting a request to our Law Library Officer. Inmate 

Pridemore has not been denied access to the courts.

 

 ______________________ 

 Gwendolyn Mosley 

 

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED TO before me this the _____ day of 

___________, 2006. 

 ______________________________ 

 NOTARY PUBLIC 

My Commission Expires: _______________ 

Case 2:06-cv-00778-MEF-WC Document 9-2 Filed 10/10/2006 Page 2 of 2