Johnson v. Bobbitt

• Decision Date: 28 December 2020
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:20-cv-76
• Parties: BENNIE JAMES JOHNSON, III, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN BOBBITT, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

BENNIE JAMES JOHNSON, III, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN BOBBITT, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:20-cv-76

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION

December 28, 2020

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff filed this action, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 8.¹ This matter is before the Court for a frivolity screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons stated below, I RECOMMEND the Court DISMISS the following portions of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint:

1. Claims Number 2, 3, and 4 for "negligence" and violations of prison policy and procedure against Defendants Bryd, Carter, Hall, Hamilton, Howard, Johnson, Popovich, and unnamed officers;

2. Claim Number 5 for deprivation of property against Defendants Jordan and McCoin;

3. Claims Number 6 and 9, an Eighth Amendment claim for missing meals, against Defendants Carter and Howard;

4. Claims Number 8 and 12, which are conditions of confinement claims, against Defendants Bryd, Carter, Howard, Johnson, and Lejet;5. Claims Number 10 and 11, Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims related to Tier II segregation, against Defendant Johnson;

6. Claim Number 14 against Defendant Johnson; and

7. Claims against Defendants Deputy Warden of Care, Jackson, and Dasher.

However, I FIND that some of Plaintiff's claims may proceed. Specifically, the Court will direct service, by separate Order, of:

1. Claims Number 1 and 7, a procedural due process claim concerning Plaintiff's assignment to Tier II, asserted against Defendants Bryd, Lejet, Johnson, Smart, and Bobbitt; and²

2. Claim Number 13, an Eighth Amendment claim, against Defendant Johnson.

To be clear, if the Court adopts these recommendations, only Plaintiff's Claim Number 1 against Bryd, Lejet, Johnson, Smart, Claim Number 7 against Defendant Bobbitt, and Claim Number 13 against Defendant Johnson will remain pending; all claims against all other named Defendants will have been dismissed.

PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS³

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this action under § 1983, asserting a series of claims with limited factual details. Doc. 8. Plaintiff's allegations are contained in a numbered list, with each enumeration setting out a legal theory followed by a terse factual allegation. Id. at 2-3.However, Plaintiff's labeling of his claim often does not match up to the claims he appears to be trying to assert under § 1983. For example, Plaintiff labels Claim Number 9 as "negligence [and] pain and suffering and cruel and unusual punishment;" however, he describes Defendant Howard intentionally depriving him of lunch. Id. at 3. Similarly, Claim Number 1 is labeled "False imprisonment, cruel and unusual punishment, negligence," but contains factual allegations related to housing in Tier II without an administrative segregation hearing, which implicates a procedural due process claim. Id. at 2. These examples are illustrative of all of Plaintiff's claims. In reviewing Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court is mindful of Plaintiff's status as a pro se litigant.⁴ Thus, the Court has endeavored to read Plaintiff's Complaint for the factual assertions he makes, disregarding some of the incorrect legal conclusions and theories Plaintiff assigned to particular events, in order to determine if a claim survives frivolity review. Plaintiff's claims can be summarized as follows:

In Claims Number 1 and 7, Plaintiff alleges Defendants Bryd, Bobbitt, Johnson, Lejet, and Smart assigned him to Tier II administrative segregation but never provided Plaintiff with a 96-hour administrative segregation hearing. Doc. 6 at 2.

In Claims Number 2, 3, 4, and 5, Plaintiff brings a series of negligence claims for failure to follow various prison policies and procedures, including: placing Plaintiff with a "close security" inmate despite Plaintiff having a "medium" security designation; Defendants Bryd, Carter, Popovich, Howard, Hamilton, and Hall failing to do rounds and check on inmates; andDefendants Jordan and McCoin failing to perform inventory resulting in Plaintiff's property being stolen. Id. at 2.

Both Claims Number 6 and 9 are claims against Defendants Carter and Howard for failing to provide Plaintiff with meals. Id. at 2-3.

Plaintiff brings conditions of confinement claims in Claims Number 8 and 12 against Defendants Bryd, Carter, Howard, Johnson, and Lejet. In those claims, Plaintiff alleges he was not permitted to take a shower for five days and his cell was not cleaned for one month. Id.

Similarly, Plaintiff complains of the conditions of Tier II in Claims Number 10 and 11, based on the restricted phone and yard time, as well as being on lockdown for 24 hours a day. Id. at 3. Claims Number 10 and 11 are asserted against Defendant Johnson. Id.

Plaintiff alleges in Claim 13 Defendant Johnson ordered another inmate to attack him in retaliation for Plaintiff contacting a human rights group and, further, that Defendant Johnson transferred Plaintiff to a cell where he was in danger and ignored Plaintiff's pleas for help. Id.

Finally, in Claim 14, Plaintiff complains Defendant Johnson transferred him to Ware State Prison, which was under lockdown at the time of his transfer. Id. As a result, Plaintiff's ability to contact the courts and perform research was restricted. Id.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A federal court is required to conduct an initial screening of all complaints filed by prisoners and plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a), 1915(a). During the initial screening, the court must identify any cognizable claims in the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Additionally, the court must dismiss the complaint (or any portion of the complaint) that is frivolous, malicious, 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. Id. Thepleadings 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). However, Plaintiff's unrepresented status will not excuse mistakes regarding procedural rules. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).

A claim is frivolous under § 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)). In order to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a complaint must contain "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)). To state a claim, a complaint must contain "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.

DISCUSSION

I. Claims Number 2, , and 4: Negligence Claims

Plaintiff brings negligence claims in claims Number 2, 3, and 4 against various Defendants for violations of prison policy and procedure. Doc. 8 at 2. Specifically, Plaintiff brings a negligence claim for his placement with a "close security" inmate despite his designation as a "medium security" inmate against Defendant Johnson. Id. Additionally, he complains Defendants Bryd, Carter, Popovich, Hall, Hamilton, and Howard negligently failed to make rounds and check on inmates and unnamed officers and Defendant Johnson falsified documents indicating they checked on inmates. Id.

Even taking Plaintiff's assertions as true and assuming Defendants actions violated prison policy and procedure, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim under § 1983. Violations of prison policies or procedures, standing alone, do not infringe upon an inmate's constitutionalrights. See Fischer v. Ellegood, 238 F. App'x 428, 431 (11th Cir. 2007) (finding plaintiff's claim alleging defendants violated an internal jail policy was insufficient to survive summary judgment); see also Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 481-82 (1995) (holding prison regulations are not intended to confer rights or benefits on inmates but are merely designed to guide correctional officials in the administration of prisons); United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 751-52 (1979) (holding mere violations of agency regulations do not raise constitutional questions). Put simply, Plaintiff's contention surrounding Defendants' alleged violation of prison protocols or procedures, whether in housing inmates or making rounds, does not amount to a constitutional violation.

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to bring ordinary state law negligence claims, such claims would also fail. The Georgia Tort Claims Act ("GTCA"), O.C.G.A. § 50-21-20 et seq., "constitutes the exclusive remedy for any tort committed by a state officer or employee." O.C.G.A. § 50-21-25(a). The GTCA provides a limited waiver of the State's sovereign immunity for actions alleging torts committed by state officers or employees; however, it does not waive the State's sovereign immunity for tort actions brought against the State in federal court. O.C.G.A. § 50-21-23(b) ("The [State of Georgia] does not waive an immunity with respect to actions brought in the courts of the United States."); Williams v. Ga. Dep't of Corr., No. 6:11-cv-11, 2012 WL 2839454, at *5 (S.D. Ga. May 2, 2012). As a result, the Georgia Department of Corrections, if substituted for the individually named Defendants, would be immune to suit in federal court.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's negligence claims against Defendants Bryd, Carter, Popovich, Hall, Hamilton, Howard, and Johnson should be DIMISSED.

II. Claim Number 5: Property Claim

In Claim Number 5, Plaintiff brings a negligence claim against Defendants Jordan and McCoin for failing to inventory his property, which resulted in the property being stolen. Doc. 8 at 2. As explained above, such state-law negligence claims are barred by the GTCA. The GTCA ...