591 F.Supp. 623 (N.D.Ga. 1984), Civ. A. C83-2032, Miles v. Evans

Docket Nº:Civ. A. C83-2032
Citation:591 F.Supp. 623
Party Name:Miles v. Evans
Case Date:August 16, 1984
Court:United States District Courts, 11th Circuit, Northern District of Georgia

Page 623

591 F.Supp. 623 (N.D.Ga. 1984)

Darry Noah MILES


David C. EVANS, Commissioner, Richard L. Abbott, Warden.

Civ. A. No. C83-2032.

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.

Aug. 16, 1984

        Darry Noah Miles, pro se.

        Victoria H. Soto, George M. Weaver, Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, Ga., for defendants.

Page 624


        ORINDA D. EVANS, District Judge.

        This case is before the court on its own motion for review, analysis, and proper direction.

        This is a § 1983 pro se suit for damages and equitable relief by an inmate of Georgia State Prison at Reidsville, Georgia. When the complaint was originally filed, Plaintiff was an inmate at another state facility in Buford, Georgia. The complaint seeks equitable relief from a wide range of alleged conditions and practices at the Buford facility, and an award of $250,000 in damages.

         The court will not undertake review of prison conditions at the state facility in Buford based on the claims of a prisoner incarcerated at Reidsville. Dudley v. Stewart, 724 F.2d 1493 (11th Cir.1984). All claims for equitable relief are hereby DISMISSED.

        This leaves for adjudication Plaintiff's claims for damages. Although the complaint is inartfully drawn, it is fairly read as seeking damages for Plaintiff's treatment during a nine-day period in 1983, following an incident wherein food was dropped just outside Plaintiff's isolation cell. Both the complaint and an affidavit filed by Defendants (see affidavit of Richard L. Abbott filed May 25, 1984) state that three inmates, including Plaintiff, were told to clean up the food or their cells would be stripped. Likewise, both the complaint and affidavit are in agreement that the food was not cleaned up and the cell was stripped of furnishings and possessions. However, the parties otherwise do not agree about the facts. For example, Mr. Abbott's affidavit states that although the water in the cell was turned off after the food incident "to avoid flooding," that the sink and commode were made operable periodically during the nine days. Plaintiff's complaint appears to contradict that. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that the fans in the cell were cut off during this period and that the temperature was "95 degree[s] or more." Warden Abbott's affidavit does not mention whether or not the fans were turned off. According to Plaintiff, the food was knocked onto the floor by a guard who kicked a food tray. Mr. Abbott's affidavit however states that the three inmates threw the food on the floor. It also states that they were "creating a disturbance."

        This case has now been pending for eleven months. The time for discovery has expired; no motions are pending. Were this not a prisoner case, 1 the court would set the case for trial (or pretrial) and rely upon the parties to appear. If Plaintiff did not appear, the case would be dismissed. Were this not a pro se case, the court would expect the parties to come to court prepared to present their evidence; Plaintiff's failure to have relevant witnesses present would result in dismissal or an adverse result. However, this is both a prisoner case and a pro se case. Plaintiff cannot voluntarily appear in court. Moreover,...

To continue reading