Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ANTHONY MACK ANDERSON, 

 Plaintiff,

vs. 3:10cv459/MCR/MD

SHERIFF D. MORGAN, et al.

 Defendants.

O R D E R

This cause is before the court upon plaintiff’s civil rights complaint filed pursuant to

Title 42 U.S.C. §1983. From a review of this complaint, it is evident that the facts as

presented fail to support a viable claim for relief under section 1983 as to some or all of the

named defendants. Additionally, plaintiff has failed to properly complete the complaint

form. The court will therefore allow the plaintiff an opportunity to clarify his allegations in

an amended complaint.

Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Escambia County Jail at the time the events giving

rise to this complaint took place. Named as defendants in this action are Sheriff Morgan,

Commander A. Hemphill and Director of Nursing, Paula LIttle. Plaintiff alleges that he has

received inadequate medical treatment for an eye injury that resulted from a tear in his

contact lens. He asserts that the injury has left him with bad headaches and blurred vision. 

He maintains that he submitted two sick call requests to Paula Little, who responded by

refusing to call him down to sick call to examine his eye or give him anything for the pain.

Instead she told him that the jail did not send inmates out to optometry. Plaintiff grieved

the matter to Commander Hemphill and received a response indicating that a torn contact

can in no way tear a retina or bruise a pupil as plaintiff had claimed. Plaintiff states that he
Page 2 of 5

was left to suffer from headaches and blurred vision. He seeks $200,000 in damages

against each defendant for the denial of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

In any section 1983 action, the initial inquiry must focus on whether two essential

elements are present:

1. whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting

under color of state law; and

2. whether this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 2254-55, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988) (citations

omitted); Holmes v. Crosby, 418 F.3d 1256, 1258 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing West). 

It is not clear from the plaintiff’s complaint whether he was a pre-trial detainee or an

inmate at the time of the events in question. This distinction is significant because if he was

a pretrial detainee at the time of the alleged misconduct, the relevant constitutional

guarantee is not the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment

applicable to convicted prisoners, but rather the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment. Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 671 n. 40, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 51 L.Ed.2d 711

(1977); Danley v. Allen, 540 F.3d 1298, 1306 (11th Cir. 2008). Although the claims are

analyzed in a similar manner, only one provision or the other would apply.1

Generally stated, the standard applicable to claims involving the mistreatment of

pretrial detainees in custody is as follows:

A Fourteenth Amendment violation occurs when a substantial risk of serious

harm, of which the official is subjectively aware, exists and the official does

not respond reasonably to the risk. [Marsh, 268 F.3d at 1028]. Furthermore,

such risk must be an objectively substantial risk of serious harm to prisoners,

and the prison official must respond to that risk in an objectively

unreasonable manner. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 844-845, 114

S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). Finally, a plaintiff must show that the

constitutional violation caused the injury. Marsh, 268 F.3d at 1028. 

 1An exception to this would be if plaintiff contends that he was denied medical treatment as both a pre-trial

detainee and after conviction.

Case No: 3:10cv459/MCR/MD
Page 3 of 5

Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003). In the medical context, the plaintiff

pretrial detainee must show that prison officials acted with “deliberate indifference to

serious medical needs” which involves satisfying an objective and a subjective inquiry.

Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003) ; Taylor v. Adams, 221 F.3d 1254,

1257 (11th Cir. 2000). First, a plaintiff must set forth evidence of an objectively serious

medical need. Taylor, 221 F.3d at 1258. Second, a plaintiff must prove that the prison

official acted with an attitude of “deliberate indifference” to that serious medical need.

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). If plaintiff

cannot show a “serious” medical need or deliberate indifference to that need, his claim will

fail. This is because “not ‘every claim by a prisoner that he has not received adequate

medical treatment states a violation of the [Fourteenth] Amendment.’” Farrow v. West, 320

F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248, 1254 (11th Cir.

1999) (citation omitted)); see also Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106 (“Medical malpractice does not

become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.”). The inadvertent

or negligent failure to provide adequate medical care “cannot be said to constitute ‘an

unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06. 

Even if plaintiff’s eye problem rises to the level of a serious medical need, he may

not be able to state a claim against the supervisory defendants, because respondeat

superior, without more, does not provide a basis for recovery under section 1983. Polk

County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981); Goebert v. Lee

County, 510 F.3d 1312, 1331 (11th Cir. 2007). “Supervisory liability under § 1983 occurs

either when the supervisor personally participates in the alleged unconstitutional conduct

or when there is a causal connection between the actions of a supervising official and the

alleged constitutional deprivation.” Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2003);

see also Marsh v. Butler County, 268 F.3d 1014, 1035 (11th Cir. 2001). Thus, 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 plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Marsh, supra; Harris v.

Ostrout, 65 F.3d 912, 917 (11th Cir. 1995). The necessary causal connection can be

established “when a history of widespread abuse puts the responsible supervisor on notice

Case No: 3:10cv459/MCR/MD
Page 4 of 5

of the need to correct the alleged deprivation, and he fails to do so.” Cottone, 326 F.3d at

1360 (quoting Gonzalez v. Reno, 325 F.3d at 1228, 1234 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting Braddy

v. Fla. Dept. of Labor & and Employment Sec., 133 F.3d 797, 802 (11th Cir. 1998))); Brown

v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 671 (11th Cir. 1990). A supervisor ordinarily cannot be held

liable under a respondeat superior theory for the acts and omissions of individuals acting

in contravention to policy. Tittle v. Jefferson County Commission, 10 F.3d 1535, 1540 (11th

Cir. 1994). However, the causal connection may be established when a supervisor’s

“custom or policy ... result[s] in deliberate indifference to constitutional rights” or when facts

support an inference that the supervisor “directed [his] subordinates to act unlawfully or

knew that the subordinates would act unlawfully and failed to stop them from doing so.”

Goebert v. Lee County, 510 F.3d 1312, 1331 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted); Cottone,

326 F.3d at 1360. “The standard by which a supervisor is held liable in [his] individual

capacity for the actions of a subordinate is extremely rigorous.” Cottone, supra, (quoting

Gonzalez, 325 F.3d at 1234). Plaintiff has set forth no allegations in his complaint

suggesting a basis for liability of Sheriff Morgan. 

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 chooses to file an amended complaint, he must completely fill out a new civil rights

complaint form, marking it “Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff must place the defendants’ 

names in the style of the case on the first page of the civil rights complaint form, and

include their addresses and employment positions in the “Parties” section of the form. In

the statement of facts, plaintiff should clearly describe how each named defendant is

involved in each alleged constitutional violation, alleging the claims as to each defendant

in separately numbered paragraphs and including specific dates and times of the alleged

unconstitutional acts. The facts relating to each defendant should be set out clearly and

in enough detail to support the legal conclusions in the complaint. Randall v. Scott, 610

F.3d 701, 709 (11th Cir. 2010). If plaintiff cannot state exactly how a particular defendant

harmed him, he should delete or drop that person as a defendant from his complaint. In

the section entitled “Statement of Claim,” plaintiff must state what rights he contends have

Case No: 3:10cv459/MCR/MD
Page 5 of 5

been violated, and he must provide support in the statement of facts for the claimed

violations. Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint must contain all of his

allegations because matters not set forth in the amended pleading are deemed to have

been abandoned. Local Rule 15.1, Northern District of Florida. 

Plaintiff should file the amended complaint with an original signature with the Court

and keep an identical copy for himself. Plaintiff should not file a memorandum of law or

otherwise provide citations to statutes and cases, and he should not file exhibits as

evidentiary support for his complaint. The court will notify plaintiff when memoranda and

exhibits are necessary, such as prior to trial or in conjunction with a motion for summary

judgment. Furthermore, plaintiff should not submit service copies of his complaint unless

and until the court directs him to do so. Finally, plaintiff is advised that discovery is

premature at this stage of the case and plaintiff should not do any discovery without leave

of court.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The clerk of court is directed to forward to the plaintiff a civil rights complaint form

for use in actions under 42 U.S.C. §1983. This case number and the words “Amended

Complaint” should be written on the form. 

2. The plaintiff shall have twenty-eight (28) days in which to file an amended civil

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

 3. Failure to submit an amended complaint as instructed will result in a

recommendation of dismissal of this action.

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of December, 2010.

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No: 3:10cv459/MCR/MD