UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER ENLOE, CASE NO. 

Plaintiff,

v.

LLOYD “SKIP” SHIVER, in his official 

capacity as SHERIFF, FRANKLIN 

COUNTY, FLORIDA, and 

STEPHEN MINIAT, individually,

Defendants.

___________________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff CHRISTOPHER ENLOE, sues Defendants, LLOYD “SKIP” SHIVER,

in his official capacity as SHERIFF OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, FLORIDA, and

STEPHEN MINIAT, individually, and alleges:

JURISDICTION

1. This is an action involving the violation of Plaintiff’s federal civil rights and

contains state causes of action pursuant to this Court’s concurrent and pendant jurisdiction. 

The aggregate amount of damages claimed by Plaintiff against Defendants is in excess of

$75,000.00, the jurisdictional amount required for venue in this Court. 

2. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 in that this

is a civil action arising under the Constitution of the United States.

Case 4:10-cv-00433-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 10/07/10 Page 1 of 13
3. Jurisdiction of the Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343(a)(3) in that

this action seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured to the

Plaintiff by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

4. The Plaintiff’s claim for relief is predicated upon 42 U.S.C. §1983, which

authorizes actions to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights, privileges,

and immunities secured to the Plaintiff by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and

by 42 U.S.C. §1988 which authorizes the award of attorney’s fees and costs to prevailing

plaintiffs in actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.

5. Plaintiff, CHRISTOPHER ENLOE, was, at all relevant times, an inmate at

the Franklin County Jail (herinafter “FCJ”). The incidents alleged herein occurred in

Franklin County, Florida. Plaintiff is thus sui juris. 

6. Defendant, LLOYD “SKIP” SHIVER (hereinafter “Shiver”), at all times

pertinent to this action, was the Sheriff of Franklin County, Florida and was responsible for

the operation of the Franklin County Jail (FCJ) and inmates housed therein. Defendant

Shiver was the employer of Defendant Edwards and other persons who inflicted punishment

in the form of denial of medical care and other deprivations of rights on Plaintiff. He is sued

in his official capacity. 

7. Defendant, STEPHEN MINIAT (hereinafter “Miniat”), at all times pertinent

hereto, was a physician who provided medical care to inmates housed in the FCJ as an

employee of Shiver and/or on contract with Shiver. He is sued in his individual capacity. 

2

Case 4:10-cv-00433-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 10/07/10 Page 2 of 13
FACTS

8. In or around October 2006, Plaintiff was an inmate at the Franklin County

Jail. Around this time, Plaintiff had received threats of violence from another inmate,

Frederick “Scooter” Estes. Plaintiff reported these threats to an employee of Defendant,

Robert Edwards, who took no action to separate Estes and Plaintiff. 

9. InmateEstessubsequentlymade good on his promises, and viciouslyattacked

Plaintiff. In the course of the attack, Plaintiff’s head was split open when it made contact

with a wall, and Estes continued to administer blows to Plaintiff after he was felled. 

Edwards eventually pulled Estes off of Plaintiff.

10. After the attack, Plaintiff was transported to the emergency room at Weems 

Memorial Hospital, where Plaintiff was treated with stitches only. 

11. Two to three weeks after Plaintiff’s attack, Plaintiff began experiencing

problems with his vision in both eyes. When Plaintiff advised members of Shiver’s staff

about his condition, Plaintiff was sent to get prescription glasses. 

12. On January 19, 2007, Plaintiff was released from FCJ but was rearrested on 

April 14, 2007, and brought back to FCJ on April 17, 2007.

13. In or around August of 2007, Plaintiff began experiencing bladder-control 

problems. Plaintiff began wetting himself at night or while asleep. When Plaintiff advised

members of FCJ’s medical staff about this condition, one of the nurses told Plaintiff there

was nothing he could do as Plaintiff’s condition was “just a symptom” of having an illness

that the nurse was aware the Plaintiff had. Similarly, another nurse, Candice Register (now

3

Case 4:10-cv-00433-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 10/07/10 Page 3 of 13
Candice Henry), advised Plaintiff, “There’s nothing we can do for you, it’s because of your

[condition].” Plaintiff was then taken to Defendant Miniat. Upon presenting his condition,

Plaintiff was again told that nothing could be done to alleviate his condition. Defendant

Miniat advised Plainitff that he could prescribe him Flowmax, but that nothing else could be

done as it was simply a symptom of his illness. Plaintiff had no choice but to rely on

Defendant’s representations. 

14. Plaintiff’s bladder problem persisted, and he was released from FCJ on

December 4, 2007. Prior to his release, Plaintiff continued to complain about his rapidly

deteriorating health to various members of the FCJ medical staff – Plaintiff was essentially

ignored. Shiver’s staff continued to cite Plaintiff’s illness in justifying their refusal to render

medical care. Plaintiff avers that much of his mistreatment and medical oversight can be

attributed to the stigma Defendants’ have attached to his condition. 

15. On September 3, 2008, Plaintiff was incarcerated in state prison, and was

brought to the Florida Department of Corrections’ Reception and Medical Center (RMC). 

By this time, Plaintiff had lost complete control of his bladder. Within weeks of Plaintiff’s

incarceration at RMC, medical tests revealed that Plaintiff had suffered extensive

neurological and muscular damage, and Plaintiff further learned that he would have to use

some form of a catheter for the rest of his life. During this time, Plaintiff was also examined

by a neurologist who determined that Plaintiff had suffered brain damage caused by a head

trauma. Plaintiff avers that the only head trauma he had ever suffered was at the hands of

inmate Estes while at FCJ.

4

Case 4:10-cv-00433-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 10/07/10 Page 4 of 13
16. Subsequently, Plaintiff was also examined by a specialist, who advised

Plaintiff that his bladder and eye problems were in no way attributable to his illness. 

Moreover, Plaintiff was advised by his neurologist that if he had received the appropriate

medical care, weeks or even months after his injury, his condition would not have

deteriorated to the point which it had deteriorated. Plaintiff’s medical condition is

irreversible. 

17. Forsome time after Plaintiff’s attack, Plaintiff was confined to a wheelchair. 

He now walks only with the help of a cane, and has been relegated to using a Foley catheter

for the rest of his life.

18. Accordingly, Plaintiff has retained the undersigned to represent his interests

in this case and is obligated to pay her a reasonable fee for her services. Defendants should

be made to pay said fee and all costs associated with this action.

COUNT I: CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION/DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE–

DEFENDANT SHIVER

19. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-18 above and incorporates those allegations

in this Count. This Count is pled in the alternative and is against Defendant Shiver. Shiver

is sued in his official and/or supervisory capacity.

20. Defendant Shiver acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious

medical needs in the following ways: Defendant refused to provide medical care for

Plaintiff’s injuries after he was beaten by an inmate; Defendant refused to provide

appropriate medical care for Plaintiff’s visual problems developed after he was beaten;

5

Case 4:10-cv-00433-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 10/07/10 Page 5 of 13
Defendant refused to provide appropriate medical care for Plaintiff’s bladder problems. One

underlying reason that Defendant refused to provide medical care isthat Defendant attributed

Plaintiff’s illnesses and medical problems to a condition that Plaintiff had. 

21. Defendant further operated to violate Plaintiff’s rights to be free from cruel

and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments tot he United States

Constitution, bought through 42 U.S.C. §1983. For the purposes of this count alone, Miniat

was actinginside the course and scope of his employment/affiliation with Defendant Sheriff. 

22. Defendant Shiver is a person under applicable law. This Defendant is liable,

both jointly and severally with Miniat to Plaintiff for the Defendants' conduct, individually

and in concert, to violate the civil rights of Plaintiff under the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution.

23. Defendant Sheriff misused his power, possessed by virtue of state law and

made possible only because he was clothed with the authority of state law. The violation of

Plaintiff’s rights, as described above, occurred under color of state law and is actionable

under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

24. The foregoing actions of Defendant were willful, wanton and in reckless

disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and constitute cruel and unusual punishment. 

25. Based upon the facts presented to Defendant, no reasonable person could have

denying Plaintiff medical care for his injuries and ongoing medical problems were lawful or

permissible behaviors under the United States Constitution at the time the actions by this

Defendant were committed.

6

Case 4:10-cv-00433-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 10/07/10 Page 6 of 13
26. The actions or inactions of this Defendant as set forth in part above

constituted a deliberate indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of Plaintiff when he

knew of and disregarded severe risks to Plaintiff’s health and safety. 

27. Defendant Sheriff acted with deliberate indifference in the failure to adopt a

policy and/or adopting an inadequate policy for incidents like that described herein when it

was obvious that the likely consequences of not adopting a policy would be a deprivation of

civil rights, and deliberately failed to provide Plaintiff with adequate medical care for his

serious medical needs. These policies or lack thereof were the moving force behind the

constitutional deprivations to Plaintiff. In part, Defendant’s failure to adopt policies and/or

their inadequate policies to ensure inmates receive prescribed medications and receive

medical attention for injuries constituted deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional

rights. Further, Defendant operated under a policy or a custom of ignoring inmate pleas for

medical treatment, denying inmates medical care and treatment, depriving them of their

medications and of refusing medical care despite knowledge of their need for treatment.

28. Defendant also failed to implement adequate hiring, training, staffing and

supervisory procedures, a direct result of which Plaintiff was denied treatment and caused

to suffer numerous injuries. By way of example, Defendant failed to adequately train his

employees and assigns on how to respond to inmate requests for medical attention and how

to treat inmates who complain of debilitating injuries.

29. Defendant Sheriff is an elected county official with final policy-making

authority for Franklin County, Florida. He is responsible for hiring, training and supervising

7

Case 4:10-cv-00433-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 10/07/10 Page 7 of 13
the correctional officers and nursing staff who work under him and, when necessary, for

investigating alleged wrongdoing by those employees. At all times referred to herein, the

Defendant Sheriff and his correctional officers, employees and agents acted under color of

state law. 

30. Defendant Sheriff’s failure to train, supervise, investigate and discipline the

individual Defendant and other of his employees responsible for the denial of care and the

abuses to Plaintiff described in part above constitutes either an improper policy or the

absence of a policy of Defendant which resulted in the deliberate indifference to the

constitutional rights of the Plaintiff. Defendant also, after notice of the constitutional

violations alleged herein, officially sanctioned these actions and refused to discipline his

agents and employees which established a policy, by a final policy-maker, that directly or

indirectly resulted in the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

31. Defendant Sheriff also has a policy of denying medical care to inmates like

Plaintiff and of being callously indifferent to inmates medical needs. Defendant Sheriff was

a supervisor of employees who were responsible for the denial of care to Plaintiff. Finally,

Defendant Sheriff also ratified the actions of Miniat by failing to discipline him and/or cite

him for the improper care of Plaintiff. The Sheriff ratified the actions of his employees who

participated, under the authority and supervision of Defendant Sheriff, in the denial of

medical care and treatment of Plaintiff.

32. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has been

damaged, which damages include: grave mental anguish, pain and suffering, loss of capacity

8

Case 4:10-cv-00433-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 10/07/10 Page 8 of 13
for the enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, bodily injury, loss of reputation, lost

employment opportunities, lost wages, and the loss of other emoluments. These damages

have occurred at present, in the past and will most likely occur in the future. Defendants are

further jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for the unlawful conduct alleged herein.

COUNT II CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS - DEFENDANT MINIAT

33. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-18 above and incorporates those allegations

in this Count. This count is pled in the alternative.

34. Defendant Miniat acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious

medical needs by failing or refusing to provide Plaintiff with appropriate medications and

medical care for his health conditions and ignored his pleas for help. This Defendant

refused to treat Plaintiff’s ongoing pain. 

35. By his actions and inactions, this Defendant further operated to violate

Plaintiff’s rights against cruel and unusual punishment protected by Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution brought through 42 U.S.C. §1983. 

36. Miniat acted in bad faith and with malicious purpose and in a manner

exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, and property. 

37. Based on the willful and malicious conduct of Defendant Miniat, as set out

in part above, Plaintiff is entitled to a substantial award of punitive damages against Miniat. 

38. Defendant Miniat is a person under applicable law. This Defendant is liable,

both jointly and severally, to Plaintiff for the Defendants' conduct, individually and in

9

Case 4:10-cv-00433-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 10/07/10 Page 9 of 13
concert, to violate the civil rights of Plaintiff under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments

to the United States Constitution.

39. Defendant misused his power, possessed by virtue of state law and made

possible only because he was clothed with the authority of state law. The violation of

Plaintiff’s rights, as described above, occurred under color of state law and is actionable

under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

40. The foregoing actions of Defendant were willful, wanton and in reckless

disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and constitute cruel and unusual punishment. 

41. Based upon the facts presented to Defendant and the applicable law, no

reasonable person could have concluded that failing to treat an inmate for medical

conditions, primarily because of an existing medical condition, or refusing to treat serious

injuries, or disregarding symptoms of serious medical problems, were examples of lawful

or permissible behavior under the United States Constitution at the time the actions by this

Defendant were committed.

42. The actions or inactions of Defendant Miniat as set forth in part above

constituted a deliberate indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of Plaintiff when he

knew of and disregarded severe risks to Plaintiff’s health and safety. 

43. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has been

damaged, which damages include: grave mental anguish, pain and suffering, loss of capacity

for the enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, bodily injury, loss of reputation, lost

employment opportunities, lost wages, and the loss of other emoluments. These damages

10

Case 4:10-cv-00433-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 10/07/10 Page 10 of 13
have occurred at present, in the past and will most likely occur in the future. Defendants are

further jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for the unlawful conduct alleged herein. 

COUNT III- NEGLIGENCE - DEFENDANT SHERIFF

44. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-18 above, incorporates those allegations in

this Count, and further alleges as follows:

45. This is an action against Defendant Sheriff in his official capacity. This count

is pled in the alternative.

46. Defendant owed a duty of care to Plaintiff due to Plaintiff being sufficiently

restrained of his liberty and freedom within the Franklin County Jail. While Plaintiff was

incarcerated in Defendant’s jail, Defendant was responsible for providing adequate medical

care to Plaintiff and to prevent foreseeable injury. Once Plaintiff was retrained of his liberty,

a duty of care arose to provide him with proper medical treatment when necessary. 

Alternatively, because of the nature of the restraint and the subsequent custodial relationship

between Plaintiff and the Defendant, Defendant had a special relationship with Plaintiff and,

consequently, a duty of care was attendant thereto.

47. Defendant breached its duty of care to Plaintiff and/or a duty to protect

Plaintiff from foreseeable injuries caused by the actions of his employees and/or agents, all

of whom were acting within the course and scope of their employment and/or relationship

with Defendant Sheriff.

48. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has been

damaged, which damages include: grave mental anguish, pain and suffering, loss of capacity

11

Case 4:10-cv-00433-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 10/07/10 Page 11 of 13
for the enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, bodily injury, loss of reputation, lost

employment opportunities, lost wages, and the loss of other emoluments. These damages

have occurred at present, in the past and will most likely occur in the future. Defendants are

further jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for the unlawful conduct alleged herein.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief: 

(a) that process issue and this Court take jurisdiction over this case; 

(b) that this Court grant equitable relief against Defendants under the

applicable counts set forth above, mandating Defendants’ obedience to the laws enumerated

herein and providing other equitable relief to Plaintiff; 

(c) enterjudgment against Defendants and for Plaintiff awarding damages

to Plaintiff from Defendant for Defendants’ violations of law enumerated herein; 

(d) enter judgment against Defendants and for Plaintiff permanently

enjoining Defendant from future violations of the state and federal laws enumerated herein; 

(e) enterjudgment against Defendants and for Plaintiff awarding Plaintiff

attorney's fees and costs; and 

(f) grant such other further relief as being just and proper under the

circumstances

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues set forth herein which are so

triable.

12

Case 4:10-cv-00433-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 10/07/10 Page 12 of 13
Dated this 7 day of October, 2010. th

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Marie A. Mattox

MarieA.Mattox[FBN0739685]

MARIE A. MATTOX, P.A.

310 East Bradford Road

Tallahassee, FL 32303

Telephone: (850) 383-4800

 Facsimile: (850) 383-4801

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

13

Case 4:10-cv-00433-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 10/07/10 Page 13 of 13