Lane v. Philbin

• Decision Date: 26 August 2016
• Docket Number: No. 14–11140,14–11140
• Citation: 835 F.3d 1302
• Parties: Rodney Manyon Lane, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Ted Philbin, Shundra Woods, Calvin Orr, Deputy Warden of Security, Sherman Maine, Captain of Security, Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

835 F.3d 1302

Rodney Manyon Lane, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.Ted Philbin, Shundra Woods, Calvin Orr, Deputy Warden of Security, Sherman Maine, Captain of Security, Defendants–Appellees.

No. 14–11140

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Date Filed: August 26, 2016

Amanda Kay Seals Bersinger, Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff–Appellant.

Michelle Jeanette Hirsch, Matthew F. Boyer, Samuel Scott Olens, Devon Orland, Attorney General's Office, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants–Appellees.

Before JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and DALTON,^* District Judge.

JORDAN, Circuit Judge:

Rodney Manyon Lane, a Georgia state prisoner with a third-grade education, alleged in his pro se handwritten complaint that he was on his way to the dining hall at the Valdosta State Prison when he was savagely attacked by another inmate who had been threatening him. The other inmate stabbed Mr. Lane four times and hit him in the face with a lock. According to the complaint, the prisoner attacked Mr. Lane because he was not a gang member and not Muslim, yet was housed in a dormitory where gang members reigned, weapons were tolerated, and violence ran amuck. Mr. Lane said that he had asked certain prison officials to move him to a different dormitory before he was attacked, but they refused his request. Mr. Lane sued four of the prison officials at Valdosta State Prison under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that their refusal to move him constituted deliberate indifference to the serious risk of serious harm he faced, and violated his Eight Amendment rights.

The district court dismissed Mr. Lane's complaint for failing to state an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference. In the district court's view, Mr. Lane failed to allege that the prison officials he sued had the requisite subjective knowledge of the risk of serious harm that he faced. Mr. Lane now appeals. Following a review of the record, and with the benefit of oral argument, we reverse. The allegations in the complaint sufficed to make out a plausible claim that the officials named as defendants were aware of the serious risk of harm faced by Mr. Lane.

I

The district court's Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is subject to plenary review. See Lord Abbett Mun. Income Fund, Inc. v. Tyson , 671 F.3d 1203, 1206 (11th Cir. 2012). To survive a motion to dismiss, Mr. Lane's complaint must have set out facts sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). This means he must have alleged “factual content that allow[ed] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant[s] [were] liable for the misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). The allegations must be plausible, but plausibility is not probability. See id.

In this procedural posture, we assume the truth of the facts alleged by Mr. Lane. And because Mr. Lane filed his complaint pro se , we hold that pleading to a less stringent standard than one drafted by an attorney. That means we read his complaint liberally. See, e.g. , Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1175 (11th Cir. 2011).

II

The complaint alleged the following facts.¹

A

Mr. Lane was housed in E–Building at Valdosta State Prison, which consists of two separate 50-man dormitories called E1–Building and E2–Building. A single officer supervises all 100 inmates in E– Building and no officers supervise the walkway from E–Building to the dining hall. The inmate population of E–Building is made up of 90% gang-affiliated inmates.

Numerous stabbings and beatings—including those of non-Muslim and non-gang inmates—take place in E–Building because of the dangerous offenders housed there and because of the numerous weapons concealed in its two dormitories. The inmates make the weapons in various ways. For example, inmates on the maintenance detail bring back lighting rods and other scrap metal from work, which they then use to create “shanks” (homemade weapons used as knives). Some inmates also pillage the cells in E–Building, tearing out light fixture panels and locker box shelves for use as materials for weapons. Though they would search E–Building, prison officials would not confiscate weapons. Administrators at Valdosta State Prison are aware of the situation in E–Building and threaten inmates housed in other dormitories with transfer to E–Building.

On the morning of June 17, 2013, while on his way to the dining hall, Mr. Lane was attacked from behind by a gang-affiliated inmate who had been threatening him. The inmate hit Mr. Lane in the eye with a lock and stabbed him four times in the back. Mr. Lane was rendered unconscious and lay on the walkway to the dining hall for several minutes before he was assisted by prison guards and provided with medical attention. He received 18 staples to close his stab wounds and his eye was glued shut. While Mr. Lane was receiving medical care, the inmate who attacked him stole all of his personal property, which was inside a locker box in his cell.

B

Mr. Lane filed an informal grievance with prison officials on June 20, 2013. The prison grievance form had four lines for Mr. Lane to describe the incident he was complaining about. On the form Mr. Lane stated that officials at the prison had violated his constitutional rights by not housing him in a safe environment, and that this violation had resulted in his attack three days earlier. He requested an internal investigation and a transfer out of E–Building. Captain Sherman Maine denied Mr. Lane's informal grievance, responding only that the “dorms are regularly searched for safety issues.” D.E. 19–2 at 27.

On July 2, 2013, after denial of his informal grievance, Mr. Lane submitted a formal grievance, again on the form provided by prison officials. He once again stated that his constitutional rights had been violated by the prison officials who failed to protect him. He described his attack, and then indicated that he had requested a transfer to another dormitory from Counselor Shundra Woods and Deputy Warden Ted Philbin. He also claimed that Captain Maine had failed to investigate the gang membership of inmates.

Officials at Valdosta State Prison denied Mr. Lane's formal grievance, summarily explaining that “[s]ecurity is provided in all building (living) units at [the prison].” Id. at 30. Mr. Lane appealed the denial of his formal grievance, but that appeal was also denied because “[t]here [was] insufficient evidence to substantiate [Mr. Lane's] allegation.” Id. at 32.

After the denial of his formal grievance appeal, Mr. Lane filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference by Counselor Woods and Deputy Warden Philbin to the serious risk of physical harm he faced. Mr. Lane later amended his complaint to add Captain Maine and Deputy Warden Calvin Orr as defendants.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claims against Captain Maine and Deputy Orr should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that all claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference. In the magistrate judge's view, Mr. Lane did not allege sufficient facts showing that any of the defendants had knowledge of the risk of serious harm he faced. The magistrate judge did not address the exhaustion defense asserted by the defendants. Nor did he analyze the other elements of Mr. Lane's Eighth Amendment claim. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).

III

Federal law provides a cause of action to a plaintiff who can prove that a defendant acting under color of state law deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity protected by the laws or Constitution of the United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ; Rehberg v. Paulk , ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 1497, 1501–02, 182 L.Ed.2d 593 (2012). There is no dispute that the prison officials sued by Mr. Lane acted under color of state law.

A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment if he is deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate who suffers injury. See Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 828, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). To establish an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference, Mr. Lane must allege facts sufficient to show “(1) a substantial risk of serious harm; (2) the defendants' deliberate indifference to that risk; and (3) causation.” Hale v. Tallapoosa Cnty. , 50 F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th Cir. 1995). The narrow issue we address is whether Mr. Lane alleged sufficient facts, for purpose of his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim, to make it plausible that the defendants had knowledge of the substantial risk of serious harm he faced.

A

The first element of an Eighth Amendment claim—a substantial risk of serious harm—is assessed under an objective standard. See Caldwell v. Warden, FCI Talladega , 748 F.3d 1090, 1099 (11th Cir. 2014). Mr. Lane had to allege conditions that were sufficiently serious to violate the Eighth Amendment, i.e., conditions that were extreme and posed an unreasonable risk of serious injury to his future health or safety. See Chandler v. Crosby , 379 F.3d 1278, 1289 (11th Cir. 2004). As we have explained, “an excessive risk of inmate-on-inmate violence at a jail creates a substantial risk of serious harm; occasional, isolated attacks by one prisoner on another may not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, [but] confinement in a prison where violence and terror reign is actionable.” Harrison v. Culliver , 746 F.3d 1288, 1299 (11th Cir. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Mr. Lane's pro se complaint...