Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:15-cv-122
01-14-2016
DONEY MATHIS, Plaintiff, v. GEORGIA STATE PRISON; GEORGIA STATE PRISON MENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT; WARDEN CHATMAN; STANLEY WILLIAMS; MS. WEST; ROBERT TOOLE, Defendants.
ORDER and MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, who is currently housed at Georgia State Prison in Reidsville, Georgia, submitted a Complaint in the above captioned action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's claims regarding denial of access to medical care should proceed against Defendants Warden Chatman, Stanley Williams, Robert Toole, and Ms. West, Mental Health Director of Georgia State Prison. However, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Georgia State Prison and Georgia State Prison Mental Health Department. Additionally, the Court should DISMISS Plaintiff's claims for monetary relief against Defendants in their official capacities, DISMISS Plaintiff's claims for compensatory and punitive damages, and DISMISS his due process claims. I further RECOMMEND that the Court DENY Plaintiff's Motion for an Immediate Injunction. (Doc. 11.) The Court DIRECTS the United States Marshal to serve Defendants Chatman, Williams, Toole, and West with a copy of Plaintiff's Complaint, (doc. 1), and this Order.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff entered the custody of the Georgia Department of Corrections in 2006 and was diagnosed with depression. (Doc. 1, p. 7.) On September 5, 2013, Plaintiff was transferred to Georgia State Prison for a mental health evaluation. (Id. at p. 8.) Plaintiff was then placed in administrative segregation at Georgia State Prison due to his mental health status. Id. Plaintiff contends that, since that time, he has suffered several "mental seizures." (Id.at p. 10.) Plaintiff states that he has been in administrative segregation 475 days since transferring to GSP. (Id. at p. 11.) Plaintiff further alleges that, pursuant to a standard operating procedure, he must be held in "close security" due to his sentence of life without parole. Plaintiff contends that placing him in administrative segregation in a close security setting exacerbates his mental health issues.
Plaintiff contends that Defendant West has shown deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's mental health needs, including failing to have Plaintiff seen by a psychiatrist. (Id. at pp. 11-12.) He contends that he also written Defendants Chatman, Williams, and Poole regarding his denial of treatment to no avail. He states that his mental health issues have caused him high blood pressure and a "significant change in appearance." (Id. at p. 13.)
Plaintiff includes an allegation that "Unit Manager Smith" has threatened action against Plaintiff as a result of Plaintiff stating that he was going to file this lawsuit. However, Plaintiff did not name Unit Manager Smith as a Defendant. Thus, Plaintiff has not asserted a claim for retaliation. Moreover, even if Plaintiff had brought such a claim, that claim is unrelated to the claims in this case and should not be asserted in the same action.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff seeks to bring this action in forma pauperis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 and 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 or 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).
When reviewing a Complaint on an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is guided by the instructions for pleading contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 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.") (emphasis omitted) (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 requisite review of Plaintiff's Complaint raises several doctrines of law, which the Court discusses as follows.
DISCUSSION
I. Dismissal of Claims Against Georgia State Prison and Georgia State Prison Mental Health Department
In order to state a claim for relief under Section 1983, a plaintiff must satisfy two elements. First, a plaintiff must allege that an act or omission deprived him "of some right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Hale v. Tallapoosa Cty., 50 F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th Cir. 1995). Second, a plaintiff must allege that the act or omission was committed by "a person acting under color of state law." Id. While local governments qualify as "persons" under Section 1983, state agencies and penal institutions are generally not considered legal entities subject to suit. See Grech v. Clayton Cty. Ga., 335 F.3d 1326, 1343 (11th Cir. 2003); Darrough v. Allen, No. 1:13-CV-57 WLS, 2013 WL 5902792, at *3 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 8, 2013) ("[a] state and its agencies (such as the Georgia Department of Corrections) are not 'persons' who may be sued under § 1983."); see also Williams v. Georgia Dep't of Corr., No. CV612-050, 2012 WL 3911232, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 6, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV612-050, 2012 WL 3910834 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 6, 2012) ("Because the Georgia Department of Corrections is a state agency, it is not a 'person' subject to suit under § 1983.") A prison, such as Georgia State Prison, is a building, not a person, and, therefore, is not a viable defendant under Section 1983. Williams v. Chatham Cty. Sherriff's Complex, Case No. 4:07-cv-68, 2007 WL 2345243 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 14, 2007) ("The county jail, however, has no independent legal identity and therefore is not an entity that is subject to suit under Section 1983.").
Furthermore, states are immune from private suits pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment and traditional principles of state sovereignty. Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 712-13 (1999). Section 1983 does not abrogate the well-established immunities of a state from suit without its consent. Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 67 (1989). Here, even if Georgia State Prison and the Georgia State Prison Mental Health Department were legal entities subject to suit pursuant to Section 1983, the State of Georgia would be the real party in interest. Accordingly, the Eleventh Amendment immunizes these Defendants from suit. See Free v. Granger, 887 F.2d 1552, 1557 (11th Cir. 1989).
For all of these reasons, the Court should DISMISS all claims against Georgia State Prison and Georgia State Prison Mental Health Department.
II. Dismissal of Claims for Monetary Damages Against Defendants in Their Official Capacities
Plaintiff cannot sustain a Section 1983 claim for monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacities. As laid out in Section I above, the Eleventh Amendment and traditional principles of state sovereignty immunize states from suit in federal court. Alden, 527 U.S. at 712-13. Section 1983 does not abrogate this immunity. Will, 491 U.S. at 67. A lawsuit against Defendants in their official capacities as employees of the Georgia Department of Corrections is "no different from a suit against the [s]tate itself." Id. at 71. Accordingly, the Eleventh Amendment immunizes them from suit in their official capacities. See Free, 887 F.2d at 1557. Plaintiff cannot sustain any constitutional claims against Defendants in their official capacities for monetary relief, and these claims should be DISMISSED.
III. Dismissal of Claims for Compensatory and Punitive Damages
No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). The purpose of this statute is "to reduce the number of frivolous cases filed by imprisoned plaintiffs, who have little to lose and excessive amounts of free time with which to pursue their complaints." Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 976-79 (11th Cir. 2000)). "Tracking the language of [this] statute, § 1997e(e) applies only to lawsuits involving (1) Federal civil actions (2) brought by a prisoner (3) for mental or emotional injury (4) suffered while in custody." Id. at 532.
In Williams v. Brown, 347 F. App'x 429, 436 (11th Cir. 2009), the Eleventh Circuit stated that, "compensatory damages under § 1983 may be awarded only based on actual injuries caused by the defendant and cannot be presumed or based on the abstract value of the constitutional rights that the defendant violated. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), in order to recover for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody, a prisoner bringing a § 1983 action must demonstrate more than a de minim[i]s physical injury." Id. (internal citations omitted) (alterations in original). Consequently, a prisoner that has not suffered any physical injury cannot recover compensatory or punitive damages. Al-Amin v. Smith, 637 F.3d 1192, 1199 (11th Cir. 2011) ("In sum, our published precedents have affirmed district court dismissals of punitive damage claims under the PLRA because the plaintiffs failed to meet § 1997e(e)'s physical injury requirement."); Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255, 1271 (11th Cir. 2007) ("Plaintiff seeks nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages. It is clear from our case law, however, that the latter two types of damages are precluded under the PLRA."), abrogated on other grounds by Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277 (2011). "In order to avoid dismissal under § 1997e(e), a prisoner's claims for emotional or mental injury must be accompanied by allegations of physical injuries that are greater than de minimis." Mitchell v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 294 F.3d 1309, 1312-13 (11th Cir. 2002). "The meaning of the phrase 'greater than de minimis,' however, is far from clear." Chatham v. Adcock, 334 F. App'x 281, 284 (11th Cir. 2009).
In this case, Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that he has suffered any physical injury due to Defendants' alleged constitutional violations. He claims that his mental health issues have caused him high blood pressure and a "significant change in appearance." (Doc. 1, p. 13.) However, as several courts have held, such conditions are not sufficient to satisfy Section 1997(e)'s physical injury requirement. Adcock, 334 F. App'x at 281 (holding that a plaintiff's claims of anxiousness, nausea, nightmares, hallucinations and increase in blood pressure were not enough to satisfy the Section 1997e(e) physical injury requirement); Casey v. Brockley, No. 913CV01271DNHTWD, 2015 WL 8008728, at *51 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2015), report and recommendation adopted, No. 913CV01271DNHTWD, 2015 WL 7864161 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2015) ("numerous courts have held-correctly, I believe-that physical manifestations of emotional injuries (e.g., anxiety, depression, stress, nausea, hyperventilation, headaches, insomnia, dizziness, appetite loss, weight loss, etc.) are not 'physical injuries' for purposes of the PLRA."); Powell v. Harrison, No. CIV.A. CV208-114, 2010 WL 331922, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 28, 2010) ("Though there is no set list for de minimis injuries, no court has ever found that hypertension by itself constitutes a physical injury rising above that standard."); May v. Donneli, No. 9:06CV437, 2009 WL 3049613, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2009) ("Plaintiff's alleged increase in blood pressure does not amount to physical injury."); Taylor v. Dupiechain, No. 08CV991, 2009 WL 1490836, at *2 (W.D. La. May 26, 2009) (chest pain and elevated blood pressure did not constitute injuries sufficient to satisfy the 1997e(e) threshold); Todd v. Graves, 217 F. Supp. 2d 958, 960 (S.D. Iowa 2002) (elevated blood pressure, aggravated hypertension, dizziness, insomnia, and loss of appetite insufficient to withstand the operation of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e)). Accordingly, the Court should DISMISS Plaintiff's claims for compensatory and punitive damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e).
However, the Eleventh Circuit has stated that "[n]ominal damages are appropriate if a plaintiff establishes a violation of a fundamental constitutional right, even if he cannot prove actual injury sufficient to entitle him to compensatory damages." Williams v. Brown, 347 F. App'x at 436 (quoting Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1162 (11th Cir. 2003)). "Thus, a prayer for nominal damages is not precluded by § 1997e(e)." Id. (quoting Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d at 1271); see also Brooks v. Warden, 800 F.3d 1295, 1307-08 (11th Cir. 2015) ("[W]e hold that nothing in § 1997e(e) prevents a prisoner from recovering nominal damages for a constitutional violation without a showing of physical injury."). Accordingly, Plaintiff's requests for nominal damages and injunctive relief shall proceed.
IV. Dismissal of Due Process Claims
Plaintiff claims that Defendants have violated his due process rights by placing him in administrative segregation. As an initial matter, this Court must give deference to prison officials on matters of prison administration and should not meddle in issues such as the contents of a prisoner's file and a prisoner's housing. Courts traditionally are reluctant to interfere with prison administration and discipline, unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. See Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 404-05 (1974) ("Traditionally, federal courts have adopted a broad hands-off attitude toward problems of prison administration [because] . . . courts are ill equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of prison administration and reform."), overruled on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989). In such cases, "[d]eference to prison authorities is especially appropriate." Newman v. State of Ala., 683 F.2d 1312, 1320-21 (11th Cir. 1982) (reversing district court's injunction requiring release of prisoners on probation because it "involved the court in the operation of the State's system of criminal justice to a greater extent than necessary" and less intrusive equitable remedy was available); see also Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 407-08 ("Acknowledging the expertise of these officials and that the judiciary is 'ill equipped' to deal with the difficult and delicate problems of prison management, this Court has afforded considerable deference to the determinations of prison administrators who, in the interest of security, regulate the relations between prisoners and the outside world."); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1979) (acknowledging that courts have "accorded wide- ranging deference [to prison administrators] in adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security."); Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, 433 U.S. 119, 129 (1977) ("Prison officials must be free to take appropriate action to ensure the safety of inmates and corrections personnel and to prevent escape or unauthorized entry."); Bradley v. Hart, No. CV513-127, 2015 WL 1032926, at *10 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 9, 2015) ("It does not appear to be appropriate for this Court to order that prison officials remove entries from Plaintiff's file, which may or may not be accurate.").
However, the Court will assess whether Plaintiff has plausibly stated a claim for denial of his procedural or substantive due process rights by placing him in administrative segregation.
A. Procedural due process
An inmate states a cognizable claim for the deprivation of his procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment when he alleges the deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, state action, and constitutionally inadequate process. Shaarbay v. Palm Beach Cty. Jail, 350 F. App'x 359, 361 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing Cryder v. Oxendine, 24 F.3d 175, 177 (11th Cir. 1994)). "Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply." Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556, (1974). Rather, "a disciplinary proceeding, whose outcome will 'impose[ ] atypical and significant hardship on the inmate' must ensure the following due process rights: (1) advance written notice of the claimed violation, (2) a written statement by the fact finders as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action taken, and (3) an opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense." Asad v. Crosby, 158 F. App'x 166, 173 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-67).
Plaintiff fails to allege any facts leading to the plausibility that his placement in administrative segregation was punitive in nature. In fact, he frequently states in his Complaint that the placement was not a punitive or disciplinary measure. On facts similar to the case at hand, this Court has held that an inmate's placement in administrative segregation is a non-punitive action. Bradley, No. CV513-127, 2015 WL 1032926, at *5. Additionally, Plaintiff has not alleged that his placement in administrative segregation resulted in any atypical or significant hardship. For all of these reasons, Plaintiff cannot sustain a procedural due process claim against Defendants.
B. Substantive Due Process
"The Due Process Clause protects against deprivations of 'life, liberty, or property without due process of law.'" Kirby v. Siegelman, 195 F.3d 1285, 1290 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV). The Supreme Court has identified two situations in which a prisoner can be deprived of liberty such that the protection of due process is required: (1) there is a change in the prisoner's conditions of confinement so severe that it essentially exceeds the sentence imposed by the court; and (2) the State has consistently given a benefit to prisoners, usually through a statute or administrative policy, and the deprivation of that benefit "imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Id. at 1290-91 (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)).
In Sandin, the United States Supreme Court addressed whether the punishment inmate Conner received for a disciplinary violation was sufficient to invoke a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. 515 U.S. at 472. Following a disciplinary conviction, Conner received 30 days' disciplinary segregation in a Special Housing Unit. Id. at 475. After noting that the segregation was a form of punishment, the Court concluded that it was not a dramatic departure from the conditions of Conner's indeterminate sentence. Id. at 485. The Supreme Court held there is no right inherent in the Due Process Clause for an inmate not to be placed in disciplinary segregation nor is there a state-created liberty interest to be free from disciplinary segregation. Id. at 487. The Court determined that the conditions of disciplinary segregation at the prison where Conner was incarcerated were virtually indistinguishable from the conditions of administrative segregation and protective custody. Id. at 486. Also, the Court noted that the conditions of disciplinary segregation were not markedly different from the conditions in general population. Id. The Court concluded that the conditions of disciplinary segregation did not impose an "atypical, significant deprivation in which a State might conceivably create a liberty interest." Id. Thus, the Court determined that Conner was not entitled to due process protection. Id. at 487. The Court observed that this holding was a return to the due process principles of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), and Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976), which required an inmate to suffer a "grievous loss" before a liberty interest could be found. Id. at 478-83. The Sandin Court ruled that in the future, liberty interests "will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which, while not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force, (citations omitted), nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Id. at 480, 484; see also, Rodgers v. Singletary, 142 F.3d 1252, 1253 (11th Cir. 1998) (affirming that two months' confinement to administrative segregation was not a deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty interest).
An inmate, therefore, has a liberty interest related to his confinement in segregation only if the state has created a liberty interest through the nature of the conditions. Sandin, 515 U.S. at 487. To determine whether the state has created a liberty interest, courts must look to the nature of the conditions of the confinement in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life, rather than to the language of the regulations regarding those conditions. Id. at 484; Wallace v. Hamrick, 229 F. App'x 827, 830 (11th Cir. 2007). Courts should also consider the duration of the confinement in segregation when determining if the confinement constitutes an atypical and significant hardship. See Al-Amin v. Donald, 165 F. App'x 733, 738 (11th Cir. 2006); see also Williams v. Fountain, 77 F.3d 372, 374 (11th Cir. 1996).
In the present action, Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that his placement in administrative segregation deprives him of a liberty interest inherent in the Constitution. Plaintiff fails to state what liberty interest is at stake from his placement in the unit. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to set forth any facts which plausibly could lead to the conclusion that the conditions of administrative segregation impose an atypical and significant hardship on him relative to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Thus, Plaintiff's confinement in administrative segregation does not deprive him of a constitutional liberty interest or a state-created liberty interest to which due process could attach.
In short, Plaintiff fails to set forth facts sufficient to render any procedural due process or substantive due process claim plausible against Defendants. Thus, the Court should DISMISS Plaintiff's due process claims.
V. Deliberate Indifference to Medical Needs Claims
The cruel and unusual punishment standard of the Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to "ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). Generally speaking, however, "prison conditions rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation only when they involve the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain." Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278, 1289 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotations omitted). Thus, not all deficiencies and inadequacies in prison conditions amount to a violation of a prisoner's constitutional rights. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981). The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons. Id. Prison conditions violate the Eighth Amendment only when the prisoner is deprived of "the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." Id. at 347. However, "[c]ontemporary standards of decency must be brought to bear in determining whether a punishment is cruel and unusual." Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1316 (11th Cir. 1999).
In the medical care context, the standard for cruel and unusual punishment, embodied in the principles expressed in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976), is whether a prison official exhibits a deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of an inmate. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 828. However, "not every claim by a prisoner that he has not received adequate medical treatment states a violation of the Eighth Amendment." Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1505 (11th Cir. 1991) (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105). Rather, "an inmate must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Hill v. DeKalb Reg'l Youth Det. Ctr., 40 F.3d 1176, 1186 (11th Cir. 1994).
In order to prove a deliberate indifference claim, a prisoner must overcome three obstacles. The prisoner must: 1) "satisfy the objective component by showing that [he] had a serious medical need"; 2) "satisfy the subjective component by showing that the prison official acted with deliberate indifference to [his] serious medical need"; and 3) "show that the injury was caused by the defendant's wrongful conduct." Goebert v. Lee Cty., 510 F.3d 1312, 1326 (11th Cir. 2007). A medical need is serious if it "'has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or [is] one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention.'" Id. (quoting Hill, 40 F.3d at 1187) (emphasis supplied). As for the subjective component, the Eleventh Circuit has consistently required that "a defendant know of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate's health and safety." Haney v. City of Cumming, 69 F.3d 1098, 1102 (11th Cir. 1995). Under the subjective prong, an inmate "must prove three things: (1) subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm; (2) disregard of that risk; (3) by conduct that is more than [gross] negligence." Goebert, 510 F.3d at 1327.
"The meaning of 'more than gross negligence' is not self-evident[.]" Id. In instances where a deliberate indifference claim turns on a delay in treatment rather than the type of medical care received, the factors considered are: "(1) the seriousness of the medical need; (2) whether the delay worsened the medical condition; and (3) the reason for the delay." Id. "When the claim turns on the quality of the treatment provided, there is no constitutional violation as long as the medical care provided to the inmate is 'minimally adequate.'" Blanchard v. White Cty. Det. Ctr. Staff, 262 F. App'x 959, 964 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Harris, 941 F.2d at 1504). "Deliberate indifference is not established where an inmate received care but desired different modes of treatment." Id.
Based on Plaintiff's allegations, he has a serious medical need, depression and other mental health issues, which required his transfer to GSP for treatment. He has relayed his need for treatment and his other issues to prison officials, including Defendants Chatman, Toole, West, and Williams. However, he has been denied any treatment for quite some time and has been subjected to conditions which he contends exacerbate his mental health condition. Based on these facts, Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. VI. Supervisory Liability Claims against Defendants Chatman, Toole, and Williams
Section 1983 liability must be based on something more than a defendant's supervisory position or a theory of respondeat superior. Bryant v. Jones, 575 F.3d 1281, 1299 (11th Cir. 2009); Braddy v. Fla. Dep't of Labor & Emp't Sec., 133 F.3d 797, 801 (11th Cir. 1998). A supervisor may be liable only through personal participation in the alleged constitutional violation or when there is a causal connection between the supervisor's conduct and the alleged violations. Id. at 802. "To state a claim against a supervisory defendant, the plaintiff must allege (1) the supervisor's personal involvement in the violation of his constitutional rights, (2) the existence of a custom or policy that resulted in deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's constitutional rights, (3) facts supporting an inference that the supervisor directed the unlawful action or knowingly failed to prevent it, or (4) a history of widespread abuse that put the supervisor on notice of an alleged deprivation that he then failed to correct." Barr v. Gee, 437 F. App'x 865, 875 (11th Cir. 2011).
The principle that respondeat superior is not a cognizable theory of liability under Section 1983 holds true regardless of whether the entity sued is a state, municipality, or private corporation. Harvey v. Harvey, 949 F.2d 1127, 1129-30 (11th Cir. 1992).
It appears that Plaintiff has named Defendants Chatman, Toole, and Williams based on more than their supervisory roles as wardens. Plaintiff states that he has communicated his mental health needs and medical requests to these Defendants since October of 2012 to no avail. Accordingly, construing his Complaint broadly, Plaintiff arguably alleges facts that could lead to the plausible conclusion that these Defendants were aware of his need for mental health treatment and disregarded that need. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 828 ("In order to be held liable under the Eighth Amendment, a prison official must know that the inmate faces a substantial risk of serious harm and then disregard that risk.") Accordingly, Plaintiff's deliberate indifference to medical needs claims will proceed against these Defendants. However, Plaintiff is forewarned that he cannot hold these Defendants liable based on their supervisory positions alone.
Additionally, Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief can proceed against Defendant Williams, the current warden at Georgia State Prison. In Luckey v. Harris, 860 F.2d 1012, 1015-16 (11th Cir. 1988), the Eleventh Circuit articulated the scope of the Ex Parte Young exception to the Eleventh Amendment. Luckey, 860 F.2d at 1015-16 (citing Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 157 (1908)). Specifically, the Court provided:
Personal action by defendants individually is not a necessary condition of injunctive relief against state officers in their official capacity. All that is required is that the official be responsible for the challenged action. As the Young court held, it is sufficient that the state officer sued must, 'by virtue of his office, ha[ve] some connection' with the unconstitutional act or conduct complained of. [W]hether [this connection] arises out of general law, or is specially created by the act itself, is not material so long as it exists.Id. At this early stage, the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for injunctive relief against Defendant Williams, the current Warden of Georgia State Prison, based on this theory.
VII. Motion for an Immediate Injunction
Plaintiff has sought preliminary injunctive relief from the Court. (Doc. 11.) To be entitled to a preliminary injunction, the movant must show: (1) a substantial likelihood of ultimate success on the merits; (2) an injunction or protective order is necessary to prevent irreparable injury; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the harm the injunction or protective order would inflict on the non-movant; and (4) the injunction or protective order would not be adverse to the public interest. Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225-26 (11th Cir. 2005). In this Circuit, an "injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly established the 'burden of persuasion' as to the four requisites." Horton v. City of Augustine, Fla., 272 F.3d 1318, 1326 (11th Cir. 2001).
Additionally, in reviewing Plaintiff's Motion, the Court is cognizant that courts are properly reluctant to interfere with prison administration and discipline, absent a clear abuse of discretion.
Plaintiff's has failed to establish that he is entitled to a preliminary injunction. Specifically, Plaintiff's Motion seeks to remedy an issue with the door on his cell which is difficult to open. This claim is unrelated to Plaintiff's claims asserted in this action and discussed above. If Plaintiff seeks to assert a claim regarding his cell doors, he must file a separate action. Moreover, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claims. For these reasons, the Court should DENY his Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
CONCLUSION
I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Georgia State Prison and Georgia State Prison Mental Health Department. Additionally, the Court should DISMISS Plaintiff's claims for monetary relief against Defendants in their official capacities and DISMISS Plaintiff's claims for compensatory and punitive damages and his due process claims. I further RECOMMEND that the Court DENY Plaintiff's Motion for and Immediate Injunction. (Doc. 11.)
The Court ORDERS any party seeking to object to this Report and Recommendation to file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days of the date on which this Report and Recommendation is entered. Any objections asserting that the Magistrate Judge failed to address any contention raised in the Complaint must also be included. Failure to do so will bar any later challenge or review of the factual findings or legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). A copy of the objections must be served upon all other parties to the action. The filing of objections is not a proper vehicle through which to make new allegations or present additional evidence.
Upon receipt of Objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above, a United States District Judge will make a de novo determination of those portions of the report, proposed findings, or recommendation to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Objections not meeting the specificity requirement set out above will not be considered by a District Judge. A party may not appeal a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Appeals may be made only from a final judgment entered by or at the direction of a District Judge. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this Report and Recommendation upon the Plaintiff.
REMAINING CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
Plaintiff's allegations in his Complaint arguably state colorable claims for denial of adequate medical care under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Chatman, Williams, Toole, and West.
Consequently, a copy of Plaintiff's Complaint and a copy of this Order shall be served upon these Defendants by the United States Marshal without prepayment of cost. The Court also provides the following instructions to the parties that will apply to the remainder of this action and which the Court urges the parties to read and follow.
INSTRUCTIONS TO DEFENDANTS
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the undersigned directs that service be effected by the United States Marshal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). In most cases, the marshal will first mail a copy of the complaint to the Defendant by first-class mail and request that the defendant waive formal service of summons. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d); Local Rule 4.7. Individual and corporate defendants have a duty to avoid unnecessary costs of serving the summons, and any such defendant who fails to comply with the request for waiver must bear the costs of personal service unless good cause can be shown for the failure to return the waiver. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). Generally, a defendant who timely returns the waiver is not required to answer the complaint until sixty (60) days after the date that the marshal sent the request for waiver. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are hereby granted leave of court to take the deposition of the Plaintiff upon oral examination. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a). Defendants are further advised that the Court's standard 140 day discovery period will commence upon the filing of the last answer. Local Rule 26.1. Defendants shall ensure that all discovery, including the Plaintiff's deposition and any other depositions in the case, is completed within that discovery period.
In the event that Defendants take the deposition of any other person, Defendants are ordered to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30. As the Plaintiff will likely not be in attendance for such a deposition, Defendants shall notify Plaintiff of the deposition and advise him that he may serve on Defendants, in a sealed envelope, within ten (10) days of the notice of deposition, written questions the Plaintiff wishes to propound to the witness, if any. Defendants shall present such questions to the witness seriatim during the deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c).
INSTRUCTIONS TO PLAINTIFF
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon their attorneys, a copy of every further pleading or other document submitted for consideration by the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be filed with the Clerk of Court a certificate stating the date on which a true and correct copy of any document was mailed to Defendants or his counsel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. "Every pleading shall contain a caption setting forth the name of the court, the title of the action, [and] the file number." Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a).
Plaintiff is charged with the responsibility of immediately informing this Court and defense counsel of any change of address during the pendency of this action. Local Rule 11.1. Plaintiff's failure to notify the Court of a change in his address may result in dismissal of this case.
Plaintiff has the responsibility for pursuing this case. For example, if Plaintiff wishes to obtain facts and information about the case from Defendants, Plaintiff must initiate discovery. See generally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, et seq. The discovery period in this case will expire 140 days after the filing of the last answer. Local Rule 26.1. Plaintiff does not need the permission of the Court to begin discovery, and Plaintiff should begin discovery promptly and complete it within this time period. Local Rule 26.1. Discovery materials should not be filed routinely with the Clerk of Court; exceptions include: when the Court directs filing; when a party needs such materials in connection with a motion or response, and then only to the extent necessary; and when needed for use at trial. Local Rule 26.4.
Interrogatories are a practical method of discovery for incarcerated persons. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33. Interrogatories may be served only on a party to the litigation, and, for the purposes of the instant case, this means that interrogatories should not be directed to persons or organizations who are not named as a Defendant. Interrogatories are not to contain more than twenty-five (25) questions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). If Plaintiff wishes to propound more than twenty-five (25) interrogatories to a party, Plaintiff must have permission of the Court. If Plaintiff wishes to file a motion to compel, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, he should first contact the attorneys for Defendants and try to work out the problem; if Plaintiff proceeds with the motion to compel, he should also file a statement certifying that he has contacted opposing counsel in a good faith effort to resolve any dispute about discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); 37(a)(2)(A); Local Rule 26.7.
Plaintiff has the responsibility for maintaining his own records of the case. If Plaintiff loses papers and needs new copies, he may obtain them from the Clerk of Court at the standard cost of fifty cents ($.50) per page. If Plaintiff seeks copies, he should request them directly from the Clerk of Court and is advised that the Court will authorize and require the collection of fees from his prison trust fund account to pay the cost of the copies at the aforementioned rate of fifty cents ($.50) per page.
If Plaintiff does not press his case forward, the court may dismiss it for want of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Local Rule 41.1.
It is Plaintiff's duty to cooperate fully in any discovery which may be initiated by Defendants. Upon no less than five (5) days' notice of the scheduled deposition date, the Plaintiff shall appear and permit his deposition to be taken and shall answer, under oath or solemn affirmation, any question which seeks information relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. Failing to answer questions at the deposition or giving evasive or incomplete responses to questions will not be tolerated and may subject Plaintiff to severe sanctions, including dismissal of this case.
As the case progresses, Plaintiff may receive a notice addressed to "counsel of record" directing the parties to prepare and submit a Joint Status Report and a Proposed Pretrial Order. A plaintiff proceeding without counsel may prepare and file a unilateral Status Report and is required to prepare and file his own version of the Proposed Pretrial Order. A plaintiff who is incarcerated shall not be required or entitled to attend any status or pretrial conference which may be scheduled by the Court.
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS TO PLAINTIFF REGARDING
MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Under this Court's Local Rules, a party opposing a motion to dismiss shall file and serve his response to the motion within fourteen (14) days of its service. "Failure to respond shall indicate that there is no opposition to a motion." Local Rule 7.5. Therefore, if Plaintiff fails to respond to a motion to dismiss, the Court will assume that he does not oppose the Defendants' motion. Plaintiff's case may be dismissed for lack of prosecution if Plaintiff fails to respond to a motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff's response to a motion for summary judgment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service of the motion. Local Rules 7.5, 56.1. The failure to respond to such a motion shall indicate that there is no opposition to the motion. Furthermore, each material fact set forth in the Defendants' statement of material facts will be deemed admitted unless specifically controverted by an opposition statement. Should Defendants file a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff is advised that he will have the burden of establishing the existence of a genuine dispute as to any material fact in this case. That burden cannot be carried by reliance on the conclusory allegations contained within the complaint. Should the Defendants' motion for summary judgment be supported by affidavit, Plaintiff must file counter-affidavits if he desires to contest the Defendants' statement of the facts. Should Plaintiff fail to file opposing affidavits setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine dispute for trial, any factual assertions made in Defendants' affidavits will be accepted as true and summary judgment may be entered against the Plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
SO ORDERED and REPORTED and RECOMMENDED, this 14th day of January, 2016.
/s/_________
R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA