Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gilder v. Alabama Dep't of Corrections.

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Western Division

November 17, 2014

NAVADNEY RONDELL GILDER, Plaintiff
v.
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants

Navadney Rondell Gilder, Plaintiff, Pro se, Brent, AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

HARWELL G. DAVIS, III, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Navadney Rondell Gilder, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, has filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that rights, privileges, or immunities afforded him under the Constitution or laws of the United States have been abridged during his incarceration. (Doc. 1). The plaintiff names as defendants the Alabama Department of Corrections, Warden Willie Thomas, Warden Deborah Toney, Captain John Hutton, and Sergeant Ronald Rutledge. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages and equitable relief. (Doc. 1 at 4). In accordance with the usual practices of this court and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the complaint was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for a preliminary report and recommendation. See McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 111 S.Ct. 1737, 114 L.Ed.2d 194 (1991).

I. Standard of Review

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, § 804, 110 Stat. 1321, and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, requires this court to screen complaints filed by prisoners against officers or employees of governmental entities and to dismiss the complaint or any portion of the complaint that it finds frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Where practicable, the court may sua sponte dismiss a prisoner's complaint prior to service. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

A dismissal pursuant to § 1915A (b)(1) for failure to state a claim is governed by the same standards as dismissals for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007). To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, " 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (internal quotation omitted). A plaintiff must assert " more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not" suffice. Bell A. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Because " [p]ro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys[, ]" they are liberally construed. Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006).

II. Factual Allegations

The plaintiff is currently an inmate in the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections in the Bibb County Correctional Facility. (Doc. 1 at 2). He has been in disciplinary segregation since August 10, 2012. (Id. at 7). He complains that he has a " conflict of interest" with the administration and seeks a transfer to a different facility, as well as money damages and the filing of criminal and civil charges against the named defendants. (Id. at 4). In support of his claim, the plaintiff asserts that the he was subjected to false disciplinaries, suffered cruel and unusual punishment due to the conditions of confinement in disciplinary segregation, was denied adequate medical care, and has false information contained in his classification review. Each allegation will be discussed, in turn.

III. Analysis

A. Disciplinaries

The plaintiff complains that on January 2, 2013, he was charged with two disciplinaries: disorderly conduct and failure to obey a direct order. (Doc. 1 at 3). Officer Alexander Bates was listed as the arresting officer, but Captain John Hutton had ordered Sergeant Ronald Rutledge to forge Officer Bates' signature. (Id.).

A disciplinary hearing was held in January of 2013. (Doc. 1 at 3). Sergeant Rutledge presided as the hearing officer. (Id.). During the hearing, Officer Bates stated that he had not written the disciplinaries and that the plaintiff had been sleeping. (Id.). In spite of Officer Bates' testimony, Sergeant Rutledge found the plaintiff guilty. (Id.).

The disciplinaries were sent to Assistant Warden Deborah Toney. (Doc. 1 at 3). Defendant Toney failed to review the findings and facts and approved them both. (Doc. 1 at 4). The head warden, Mr. Thomas, stated that he was not aware of either incident, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.