Source: http://ga.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180403_0000815.SGA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:51:00+00:00

Document:
WARDEN HILTON HILL; GREG DOZIER; ASSISTANT WARDEN RICK STONE; and LIBRARIAN L. WALKER, Defendants.
Plaintiff, who is currently housed at Coffee Correctional Facility in Nicholls, Georgia, filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contesting certain conditions of his confinement. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for injunctive relief. (Doc. 3.) The Court has permitted Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 7.) For the reasons set forth below, I RECOMMEND the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's access to the courts, conspiracy, class action, and preliminary injunctive relief claims against Defendants. Additionally, the Court should DENY Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis as to these claims. However, Plaintiff arguably states a colorable equal protection claim against Defendants. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the United States Marshal to serve Defendants with a copy of Plaintiff's Complaint and this Order.
Plaintiff seeks to bring this action in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), the Court may authorize the filing of a civil lawsuit without the prepayment of fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all of his assets, shows an inability to pay the filing fee, and also includes a statement of the nature of the action which shows that he is entitled to redress. Even if the plaintiff proves indigence, the Court must dismiss the action if it is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). Additionally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review a complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity. Upon such screening, the Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion thereof, that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or which seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The Court looks to the instructions for pleading contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when reviewing a complaint on an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 (“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain [among other things] . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 10 (requiring that claims be set forth in numbered paragraphs, each limited to a single set of circumstances). Further, a claim is frivolous under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) “if it is ‘without arguable merit either in law or fact.'” Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001)).
Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Thompson v. Rundle, 393 F. App'x 675, 678 (11th Cir. 2010). Under that standard, this Court must determine whether the complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A plaintiff must assert “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not” suffice. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Section 1915 also “accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1349 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)).
In its analysis, the Court will abide by the long-standing principle that the pleadings of unrepresented parties are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys and, therefore, must be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006) (“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys . . . .”) (quoting Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003)). However, Plaintiff's unrepresented status will not excuse mistakes regarding procedural rules. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“We have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.”).
The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the government to treat similarly situated people alike. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). To establish such a claim, “a prisoner must demonstrate that: (1) ‘he is similarly situated with other prisoners who received' more favorable treatment; and (2) his discriminatory treatment was based on some constitutionally protected interest[, ] such as race.” Jones v. Ray, 279 F.3d 944, 946-47 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting Damiano v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 785 F.2d 929, 932-33 (11th Cir. 1986)). “If a suspect classification, such as race, or a fundamental right is implicated, a court must apply strict scrutiny to that claim.” Hernandez v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 281 F. App'x 862, 867 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 506-07 (2005) (holding that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review for racial classifications even in the prison context)).
In his Complaint, Plaintiff contends he asked Defendant Walker to help him obtain law books, materials, and computers written in Spanish “like all the [E]nglish speaking inmates have access to, so he could adequately present his habeas corpus in court.” (Doc. 1, pp. 8-9.) In response, Defendant Walker informed Plaintiff that this was not going to happen based on the policy “from the top to me” at Coffee Correctional, which does not require the provision of Spanish language materials. As Plaintiff has identified he has been treated differently from English speaking inmates, and Plaintiff's race or nationality has been implicated, he sets forth a plausible equal protection claim against Defendants Hall, Dozier, Stone, and Walker.
The actual injury which the inmate must demonstrate is an injury to the right asserted, i.e. the right of access. Thus, the . . . official's actions which allegedly infringed on an inmate's right of access to the courts must have frustrated or impeded the inmate's efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim. See Lewis [v. Casey, 518 U.S. [343, 352-54 (1996)]. Further, the legal claim must be an appeal from a conviction for which the inmate was incarcerated, a habeas petition or a civil rights action. See id. at 352-57.
Bass v. Singletary, 143 F.3d 1442, 1445 (11th Cir. 1998). “[A]n inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury simply by establishing that his prison's law library or legal assistance program is subpar in some theoretical sense.” Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351. Instead, the inmate must show that a nonfrivolous, arguable claim he wished to bring has been lost or rejected due to the deficiency or that the deficiency is currently preventing his presentation of such a claim. Sanchez v. Stephens, 689 F. App'x 797, 799 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing Harbury, 536 U.S. at 415; Lewis, 518 U.S. at 353 & n.3, 356). “The underlying claim must be described well enough to apply the frivolity test and to show that its “‘arguable' nature . . . is more than hope.” Id. (quoting Harbury, 536 U.S. At 416).

References: § 1983
 § 1915
 § 1915
 § 1915
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.