Allen v. Dixon
| Decision Date | 31 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 4:22-cv-148-WS/MJF |
| Parties | JOSEPH W. ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. RICKY DIXON, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
After two “unknown transportation officers” (“UTOs”) refused to assist Plaintiff Joseph W Allen in carrying his “legal documents” onto a transport bus, Allen allegedly fell on the bus's stairs and sustained injuries. Allen alleges that he did not receive adequate medical care for those injuries because Defendant Williams-a nurse employed by Centurion-refused to refill Allen's prescriptions and renew his medical passes.
Three months later, the Florida Department of Corrections (“FDC”) again transferred Allen to another facility. Defendant Officer Jordan allegedly oversaw Allen's transfer. Allen allegedly did not receive two boxes containing certain “legal documents” until several months after his transfer. Allen alleges that four “law books” and four or five “folders of legal documents” are missing.
Because Allen's fifth amended complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief as to several causes of action the District Court should dismiss with prejudice all of Allen's claims against Defendant Ricky Dixon and Allen's EighthAmendment claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Centurion. Additionally because Jordan is not properly joined as a defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2), the District Court should sever and dismiss without prejudice Allen's claims against Jordan.
On January 4, 2023, Allen, a prisoner proceeding pro se, file a fifth amended complaint. Doc. 22. Allen alleges that on November 16, 2021, two UTOs transported Allen from the Blackwater River Correctional Facility to the Apalachee Correctional Institution (“ACI”). Id. at 6 ¶ 1. Allen alleges that “[t]his transportation has been repeatedly done several times without incident.” Id. According to Allen, he showed the UTOs his “current issued medical passes,” which listed Allen's medical restrictions due to “past back surgery,” “current back problems,” and a “right[-]knee issue.” Id. Allen's medical restrictions allegedly prohibit him from lifting, pushing, and pulling no more than twenty pounds. Id. at 6-7 ¶¶ 1, 4.
Allen alleges that the UTOs refused to help Allen carry “over hundreds of pounds of legal documents” onto the transport bus and prevented other inmates from helping Allen do so. Doc. 22 at 6-7 ¶¶ 1-2, 4. According to Allen, the UTOs “ridiculed” Allen, called Allen “many abusive names,” and “repeatedly told [Allen] to abandon [his] legal documents.” Id. at 7 ¶ 3. Allen also alleges that Dixon, the Secretary of the FDC, ordered that Allen's transfer be “swift and hard.” Id. at 9 ¶ 11. Allen, however, does not allege how he knows this.
As he was carrying a box of “legal documents” up the bus's “makeshift steps,” Allen allegedly lost his balance and fell backwards off the bus. Id. at 6-7 ¶¶ 2, 4. Allen alleges that he could not grab the bus's railing because he was shackled. Id. at 7 ¶ 4. Allen alleges that after he fell, he initially refused medical treatment because he was embarrassed. Doc. 22 at 7 ¶ 5. Thirty minutes after the fall, however, Allen allegedly realized that he injured his back, head, right arm and elbow, and right leg and knee. Id.
Following his fall on November 16, 2021, Allen was transported that same day to ACI. Id. at 7, 11 ¶¶ 5, 16. At ACI, Williams examined Allen's injuries. Id. at 23. Williams provided Allen with a “handful[] of Ibuprofen and [a] tube of muscle rub.” Id. Allen alleges that he was “surprised and impressed with [his] initial medical treatment.” Doc. 22 at 23. But two weeks later, Allen learned that Williams “denied refilling [his] medication(s) even for [his] hemorrhoids” and refused to renew Allen's medical passes. Id. Allen alleges that as a result of Williams's actions, he was “in severe pain” for three months. Id. at 11 ¶ 16.
Additionally, Allen alleges that for “the whole year of 2022,” he did not receive an MRI or a brain scan. Id. at 10 ¶ 13. Allen does not allege why he needs an MRI or a brain scan. Allen also alleges that Centurion and its employees failed “to order refill medications and fail[ed] to give a proper examination and diagnosis.” Id. Allen then lists several medical examinations and medications:
Pain medication (pills); muscle rub (cream); hemorroidal medication (ointment, wipes); written passes ect., testing (MRI, EKG, EEG) brain/head scans. viz, Naproxen 500 mg. says: “Take one tablet by mouth twice daily with food as needed.” Your, Centurion practice is to only give, (30 pills to last 90 days). Directions of two a day as needed, is correctly directed. But 15 day I am out of pain relief on the 16th day. That leaves 75 days with nothing.
On February 22, 2022, Allen alleges that he was transferred from ACI to the Wakulla Correctional Institution “due to [a] violation of reprisal/retaliation” without two boxes of his “legal documents.” Id. at 8 ¶ 6. Allen alleges that Jordan oversaw Allen's transport. Id. at 10 ¶ 12. When Allen went to retrieve the two boxes before his transfer, Jordan allegedly stated, “Allen I know why you're here, and Allen your a piece of [expletive] and if it was up to me you would not get none of your legal documents.” Id. (errors in original). When Allen received the boxes several months after his transfer, four “law books” and four or five “folders of legal documents” allegedly were missing from the boxes. Id. at 8 ¶ 7.
Allen asserts the following claims:
Doc. 22 at 6-11, 22-23. Allen is suing Dixon in his official and individual capacities, Centurion in its official capacity, and the remaining defendants in their individual capacities. Id. at 2-4. As relief, Allen requests damages, various forms of medical treatment, and “injunctive relief from transfer.” Id. at 13-14.
Because Allen is a prisoner, the court is required to review his complaint, identify cognizable claims, and dismiss the complaint, or any portion thereof, if the complaint is frivolous, is malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b); see id. § 1915(e)(2)(B) ().
A court should dismiss a claim that is not supported by factual allegations, accepted as true, that allow the court “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). Factual allegations that merely suggest the possibility that the defendant acted unlawfully are insufficient. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A court also should dismiss a claim when the allegations demonstrate that recovery is barred by an affirmative defense. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007); Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1357 (11th Cir. 2003).
Courts “hold the allegations of a pro se complaint to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014). But federal courts “cannot act as de facto counsel or rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading to sustain an action.” Bilal v. Geo Care, LLC, 981 F.3d 903, 911 (11th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted).
Allen is suing Dixon, the Secretary of the FDC, in Dixon's official and individual capacities. Doc. 22 at 2. He asserts against Dixon claims under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at 6-10. As relief for these claims, Allen requests damages and “injunctive relief from transfer.” Id. at 7-10.
Official-capacity claims are “only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 16566 (1985) (quoting Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55 (1978)). An official-capacity claim against a governmental official, therefore, generally is “treated as a suit against the underlying governmental entity.” Scott v. Taylor, 405 F.3d 1251, 1254 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Graham, 473 U.S. at 165-67). Thus, Allen's official-capacity claims against Dixon essentially are claims against the FDC.
The Eleventh Amendment generally bars suits for damages by an individual against a state, its agencies, and its employees, unless Congress has abrogated the state's sovereign immunity or the state has consented to suit. Schultz v. Alabama, 42 F.4th 1298, 1314 (11th Cir. 2022) (quoting Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 68 (1985)); see Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 16-18 (1890); Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
Congress has not abrogated...
To continue reading
Request your trial