Opinion ID: 3062972
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Smith’s Complaint

Text: Smith’s complaint alleges that: (1) Nurse Wade, Sergeant Murphy and Major Sheffield violated his Eighth Amendment rights by being deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, (2) Sergeant Murphy’s DR was in retaliation for Smith’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, including prior 3 The DR attached to Smith’s complaint does not cite the rule Smith was charged with violating. Smith contends that he was found guilty of violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-601.314, § 6-1, which imposes a punishment of thirty days in disciplinary confinement and takes away sixty days of gain time if an inmate disobeys “any order given to an inmate or inmates by a staff member or other authorized person.” 4 Smith’s complaint states that he filed over fifty-five actions in federal and state court over the past five years. The district court noted that Smith filed at least ten actions in the Southern District of Florida in the past three years and that the district court has entered an order, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), in Case No. 06-CV-14066, prohibiting Smith from petitioning to proceed in forma pauperis before any court in the United States. At least four of Smith’s federal actions have been appealed to this Court. See Smith v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corrs., No. 0911423, 2009 WL 4893301 (11th Cir. Dec. 21, 2009); Smith v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corrs., 318 F. App’x 726 (11th Cir. 2008); Smith v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corrs., 286 F. App’x, 682 (11th Cir. 2008); Smith v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corrs., 252 F. App’x 301 (11th Cir. 2007). 6 lawsuits he filed against Nurse Wade and Sergeant Murphy and his protest about his discharge from the infirmary; (3) Florida Department of Corrections’s “disobeying any order” rule was vague, overbroad and facially unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause; and (4) numerous due process violations occurred in connection with Smith’s DR hearing. B. Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim The district court granted Smith leave to proceed in forma pauperis. A magistrate judge conducted an initial screening of Smith’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The magistrate judge’s report (“R&R”) recommended that Smith’s complaint be dismissed, pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to state a claim because it: (1) did not state a First Amendment retaliation claim because Smith admittedly disobeyed the order that resulted in the DR and Smith’s complaint did not allege facts showing a causal link between Smith’s First Amendment activity and the valid DR; (2) did not state a due process claim as to the disciplinary proceedings because thirty days in insolation is not an excessive, atypical or significant hardship that would implicate the Due Process Clause; (3) did not state a claim that the “disobeying any order” rule is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because that rule is necessary to preserve order and discipline in the prison; and (4) did not state an Eighth Amendment claim because Smith’s 7 allegations at most established negligence and not deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Smith filed objections to the R&R. The district court approved the R&R and dismissed Smith’s complaint. The district court noted that the complaint’s allegations established that: (1) Smith received treatment consistent with that recommended by the emergency room doctor and, thus, the order to leave the infirmary was not illegal; and (2) the refusal to give Smith a few more days of bed rest in the infirmary to heal was a disagreement with the course of medical treatment that did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. Smith filed this appeal.