Dennis v. Peterson
| Decision Date | 26 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | CV 512-048 |
| Parties | COREY H. DENNIS, Plaintiff, v. JOHNNY PETERSON, BRIGMAN MOORE, and STEVEN STEELER, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia |
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. See Dkt. No. 35. After careful consideration and an independent and de novo review of the record, the Court ADOPTS IN PART the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. See Dkt. No. 33. Plaintiff's Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 35) is SUSTAINED IN PART. Dkt. No. 15. Nevertheless, for the reasons stated below, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 17.
This action is predicated on the alleged violation of Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights. See Dkt. No. 1. The following factual summary is taken from Plaintiff's Complaint.1 See id.
Plaintiff alleges that the following events occurred while he was incarcerated at the Ware State Prison in Waycross, Georgia. See id. Defendants were correctional officers at the Ware State Prison during the relevant time period. Id. at 3.
Plaintiff suffers from seizures. Id. Because of his medical condition, Plaintiff's prison profiles indicated that he was not to be housed on the "top range." Id. Contrary to his profiles, Plaintiff was housed on the top range. Id.
As Plaintiff was being escorted from his cell on the top range to the prison showers, he fell and struck his head. Id. Plaintiff immediately notified Officer Steeler that he suffered from seizures and that he needed medical attention. Id. Instead of contacting medical personnel, Officer Steeler drugPlaintiff to the shower. Id. Plaintiff lay on the shower floor for more than an hour. Id. While lying on the shower floor, Plaintiff suffered a seizure and "harmed himself." Id. The Court refers to this single event as the "Shower Incident."
Plaintiff informed Defendants Moore and Peterson of his medical condition and the portion of his profile that indicated that he was not to be housed on the top range. Id. Defendants Moore and Peterson said, Id.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Dkt. No. 1. Liberally construing Plaintiff's Complaint,2 Plaintiff asserts two (2) claims against Defendants Peterson and Moore (hereinafter "Defendants").3 First, Plaintiff alleges thathis Eighth Amendment rights were violated during the Shower Incident. See id. at 3. Second, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his constitutional rights by refusing to assist in his transfer from the top range. See id.
Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. See Dkt. No. 17. Response and reply were filed. See Dkt. Nos. 28, 29. The Magistrate Judge then reported his recommendation to grant Defendants' motion based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Dkt. No. 33. Plaintiff objected to the Report and Recommendation. See Dkt. No. 35. In his objection, Plaintiff provided evidence that he had exhausted his administrative remedies. See id. at 5-6. Defendants responded to Plaintiff's objection and did not dispute the accuracy of Plaintiff's evidence. See Dkt. No. 36
This Court conducted an independent and de novo review.
In considering a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court must "construe[] the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept[] all well-pled facts alleged . . . in the complaint as true." Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009). To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint need not contain "detailed factual allegations" but must include enough facts to raise a right to relief above the "speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The complaint must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face" meaning that the factual content "allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Speaker v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 623 F.3d 1371, 1380 (11th Cir. 2010).
"A complaint is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) when its allegations—on their face—show that an affirmative defense bars recovery on the claim." Marsh v. Butler Cnty., Ala., 268 F.3d 1014, 1022 (11th Cir. 2001) (en banc) ().
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, this Court liberally construes his pleadings. See Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1175 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) .
Plaintiff brings claims against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Dkt. No. 1, at 3-4.
Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint against them for four (4) principal reasons. First, Defendants contend that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Dkt. No. 17-1, at 3-7. Second, Defendants contend that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See id. at 7-10. Third, Defendants contend that they are entitled to sovereign immunity. See id. at 17-18. Fourth, Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 15-17. For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Defendants assert that Plaintiff's claims are barred because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See id. at 3-7. Plaintiff asserts that he exhausted his administrative remedies. See Dkt. Nos. 1, 35. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendants' motion be granted, reasoning that Plaintiff failed to appeal his administrative grievance. See Dkt. No. 33.
In his objection to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, Plaintiff provided evidence that he did appeal and, thus, exhaust his administrative grievance. See Dkt. No. 35. In light of that evidence, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claims for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Plaintiff's claims arose while he was incarcerated. While he remains incarcerated,4 the Prison Litigation Reform Act("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, prevents Plaintiff from bringing suit in federal court unless and until he exhausts his administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (); Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 520 (2002) (). Thus, exhaustion of Plaintiff's administrative grievance was a mandatory precondition of filing suit in federal court. See Leal v. Ga. Dept. of Corr., 254 F.3d 1276, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001) ; Priester v. Rich, 457 F. Supp. 2d 1369, 1373 (S.D. Ga. 2006), aff'd sub nom., Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 2008) ().
"There is a two-step process for determining whether an inmate has exhausted his administrative remedies." Palmore v. Tucker, No. 12-11338, 2013 WL 3214689, at *2 (11th Cir. June 26, 2013) (per curiam). "First, the court looks to the factual allegations in the defendant's motion to dismiss and those in the plaintiff's response, and if they conflict, takes the plaintiff's version of the facts as true." Id. (quoting Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077, 1084 (11th Cir. 2008)). "If, in that light, the defendant is entitled to have the complaint dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, it must be dismissed." Id. (quoting Turner, 541 F.3d at 1082). "If the complaint is not dismissed at the first stage, the court moves on to the second step, which requires it 'to make specific findings in order to resolve the disputed factual issues related to exhaustion.'" Id. (quoting Turner, 541 F.3d at 1082).
The parties disagree as to whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies on each of his claims against Defendants. Plaintiff asserts that he exhausted his administrative remedies. See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 1, at 2, 4; 35, at 3, 5-6. By contrast, Defendants assert that Plaintiff nevergrieved his housing assignment on the top range and never grieved Defendants' participation in the Shower Incident. See Dkt. Nos. 17-1, at 6-7; 36, at 3.
Given this conflict, the Court is required—at this step in the exhaustion analysis—to take Plaintiff's version of events as true. See Turner, 541 F.3d at 1082. In so doing, part of Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding Defendants' alleged participation in the Shower Incident. Plaintiff directs the Court to his grievance. That grievance alleges that Officer Steeler was involved in the Shower...
To continue reading
Request your trial