Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

KEITH RAGANS,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv220-RH/WCS

WALTER A. MCNEIL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

O R D E R

Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 28, 2010. Doc. 1. Plaintiff has paid the

assessed initial partial filing fee, doc. 6, and the complaint has now been reviewed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

Plaintiff's complaint does not use numbered paragraphs to set forth the statement

of facts. Doc. 1. Pursuant to Rule 10(b), all statements "shall be made in numbered

paragraphs, the contents of which shall be limited as far as practicable to a statement of

a single set of circumstances." Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). In its present form, the complaint

could not be appropriately responded to by the Defendants. Plaintiff must file an

Case 4:10-cv-00220-RH-WCS Document 7 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 6
Page 2 of 6

amended complaint in which he sets forth each factual allegation in a separately

numbered paragraph as it is essential that the facts related to each Defendant be set

out clearly and in detail. 

While Plaintiff may complain that policies and procedures were not followed at

the Correctional Institution where Plaintiff was housed, Plaintiff may not seek to hold the

Secretary of the Department of Corrections liable for that failure. It is only where the

policies created by the Secretary were followed which caused Plaintiff injury could he

seek relief from the Secretary. In this case, however, Plaintiff contends that the policies

were not followed. Therefore, Plaintiff does not have a viable complaint against the

Secretary. On the other hand, Plaintiff may retain his claims against the Warden of that

Institution if Plaintiff contends that Defendant knowingly allowed policies to be violated

which created an unsafe or otherwise unlawful constitutional injury to Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff is advised that a prison official cannot be named as a Defendant in a civil

rights case merely because he or she has supervisory authority over others. The

doctrine of respondeat superior does not provide a basis for recovery under § l983. 

Harvey v. Harvey, 949 F.2d 1127, 1129 (11th Cir. 1992), citing Monell v. Department of

Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978); see also Collins

v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 112 S. Ct. 1061, 117 L. Ed. 2d 261 (1992);

Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 106 S. Ct. 1292, 89 L. Ed. 2d 452 (1986). 

Naming as Defendants those individuals who are merely responsible for the safety of

inmates, in general, or even the safety of the inmates at a particular institution, without

more, does not state a viable claim for relief. Although personal participation is not

specifically required for liability under § l983, there must be some causal connection

Case No. 4:10cv220-RH/WCS

Case 4:10-cv-00220-RH-WCS Document 7 Filed 07/13/10 Page 2 of 6
Page 3 of 6

between each defendant named and the injury allegedly sustained. Swint v. City of

Wadley, 51 F.3d 988, 999 (11th Cir. 1995), citing Rivas and Zatler; Rivas v. Freeman,

940 F.2d 1491, 1495 (11th Cir. 1991); Zatler v. Wainwright, 802 F.2d 397, 401 (11th Cir.

1986). One cannot be held liable for the actions or omissions of others but can only be

held responsible if he participated in the deprivation of a plaintiff's constitutional rights. 

Alternatively, a plaintiff must show that the defendant promulgated a policy or other

directive that resulted in such deprivation. Plaintiff has not stated any specific facts for

any Defendant which provide a causal connection to Plaintiff's alleged injury.

Plaintiff should be aware that the Supreme Court has unequivocally held that a

state official's negligent conduct, even though it causes injury, does not constitute an

actionable deprivation under § 1983. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833,

118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998); Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331, 106

S. Ct. 662, 665, 88 L. Ed. 2d 662 (1986). Plaintiff has not alleged more than negligence

by state officials.

Deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners states a valid

constitutional claim. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251

(1976)(holding that such a claim by a prisoner convicted of a crime violates the Eighth

Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment). The concept of deliberate

indifference must be more than negligence, but is satisfied by something less than

actions undertaken with an intent to cause harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 114 S. Ct. 1970,

1978 (1994). Subjective recklessness, as defined in criminal law, is the standard which

must be shown for an official's actions to rise to the level of deliberate indifference. Id. 

There are four requirements to bringing an Eighth Amendment claim for the denial of

Case No. 4:10cv220-RH/WCS

Case 4:10-cv-00220-RH-WCS Document 7 Filed 07/13/10 Page 3 of 6
Page 4 of 6

medical care: "an objectively serious need, an objectively insufficient response to that

need, subjective awareness of facts signaling the need, and an actual inference of

required action from those facts." Taylor v. Adams, 221 F.3d 1254, 1258 (11th Cir.

2000), cert. denied 531 U.S. 1077 (2001); Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th

Cir. 2003). The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that "[g]rossly incompetent or

inadequate care can constitute deliberate indifference . . . as can a doctor's decision to

take an easier and less efficacious course of treatment." Waldrop v. Evans, 871 F.2d

1030, 1033 (11th Cir. 1989), citing Rogers v. Evans, 792 F.2d 1052, 1058 (11th Cir.

1986); McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248, 1255 (11th Cir. 1999). However, medical

malpractice does not constitute deliberate indifference, Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S.

Ct. at 292, "[n]or does a simple difference in medical opinion between the prison's

medical staff and the inmate as to the latter's diagnosis or course of treatment support a

claim of cruel and unusual punishment." Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1505 (11th

Cir. 1991), citing Waldrop v. Evans, 871 F.2d 1030, 1033 (11th Cir. 1989). A complaint

that more treatment or tests should have been provided has been rejected as a basis

for liability. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 107, 97 S. Ct. at 293. 

In amending, Plaintiff should carefully review the foregoing to determine whether

he can present allegations sufficient to state a cause of action under the relevant law. If

Plaintiff is able to file an amended complaint, he must name as Defendants only those

persons who are responsible for the alleged constitutional violations. Plaintiff must

place their names in the style of the case on the first page of the civil rights complaint

form and in the other appropriate sections of the form. Further, Plaintiff should clearly

describe how each named Defendant is involved in each alleged constitutional violation. 

Case No. 4:10cv220-RH/WCS

Case 4:10-cv-00220-RH-WCS Document 7 Filed 07/13/10 Page 4 of 6
Page 5 of 6

In civil rights cases, more than conclusory and vague allegations are required to state a

cause of action. See, Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 556-57 (11th Cir. 1984). If

Plaintiff cannot state exactly how a particular Defendant harmed him, Plaintiff should

delete or drop that person as a Defendant from the complaint. In presenting the claims,

Plaintiff must set forth each allegation in a separately numbered paragraph, as it is

essential that the facts relating to each Defendant be set out clearly and in detail.

To amend the complaint, Plaintiff must completely fill out a new civil rights

complaint form, marking it "Amended Complaint." The amended complaint must

contain all of Plaintiff's allegations and should not in any way refer to the original

complaint. An amended complaint completely replaces all previous complaints and they

are disregarded. N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 15.1. The amended complaint filed with the Court

must contain Plaintiff's original signature, but Plaintiff shall also keep an identical copy

for himself. Plaintiff need not file service copies until instructed to do so by the Court.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED:

1. The Clerk of Court is directed to forward to Plaintiff a § 1983 complaint form

so that Plaintiff can file the amended complaint as explained above.

2. Plaintiff shall have until August 13, 2010, to file an amended civil rights

complaint, which shall be typed or clearly written and submitted on court forms.

3. Failure to comply with this Court order may result in a recommendation

of dismissal of this action.

4. Plaintiff shall immediately file a notice to the Clerk's Office in the event that his

address changes or he is transferred or released from custody.

Case No. 4:10cv220-RH/WCS

Case 4:10-cv-00220-RH-WCS Document 7 Filed 07/13/10 Page 5 of 6
Page 6 of 6

5. The Clerk of Court shall return this file to me upon receipt of Plaintiff's

amended complaint or no later than August 13, 2010.

DONE AND ORDERED on July 13, 2010.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No. 4:10cv220-RH/WCS

Case 4:10-cv-00220-RH-WCS Document 7 Filed 07/13/10 Page 6 of 6