United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Western Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
G. CORNELIUS U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
plaintiff has filed a pro se second amended
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
violations of his rights under the Constitution or laws of
the United States. (Doc. 33). The plaintiff names the
following defendants in the second amended complaint: Warden
Christopher Gordy, Warden Willie Thomas, Classification
Supervisor Bias, and Nurse Practitioner McKay. (Id.
at 1-3). The plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive
relief. (Id. at 7-8). In accordance with the usual
practices of this court and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the
second amended complaint was referred to the undersigned for
a preliminary report and recommendation. See McCarthy v.
Bronson, 500 U.S. 136 (1991).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Prison Litigation Reform Act, as partially codified at 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, requires this court to screen complaints
filed by prisoners against government officers or employees.
The court must dismiss the complaint or any portion thereof
that it finds frivolous, malicious, seeks monetary damages
from a defendant immune from monetary relief, or does not
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id.
Moreover, the court may sua sponte dismiss a
prisoner's complaint prior to service. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
§ 1915A(b)(1) and § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a claim may
be dismissed as “frivolous where it lacks an arguable
basis in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim is frivolous as a matter of
law where, inter alia, the defendants are immune
from suit or the claim seeks to enforce a legal right that
clearly does not exist. Id. at 327.
a complaint may be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A (b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. A review on this ground is governed by the
same standards as dismissals for failure to state a claim
under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215
(2007). 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) (internal quotation marks omitted). That
is, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level” and must
be a “‘plain statement' possess[ing] enough
heft to ‘show that the pleader is entitled to
relief.'” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555, 557 (2007) (alteration incorporated). But
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 678. Similarly, when
a successful affirmative defense, such as a statute of
limitations, appears on the face of a complaint, dismissal
for failure to state a claim is also warranted.
Jones, 549 U.S. at 215.
se pleadings “are held to a less stringent
standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys” and are
liberally construed. Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d
1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006). However, they still must allege
factual allegations that “raise a right to relief above
the speculative level.” Saunders v. Duke, 766
F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks
26, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended petition for writ of
habeas corpus on the form typically used to assert claims
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 3). On November 15, 2016,
the undersigned recommended that the court dismiss the
plaintiff's habeas corpus claims and recharacterize his
remaining claims as invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc.
12). On February 28, 2017, the court accepted the
undersigned's recommendation, dismissed the
plaintiff's habeas claims, and recharacterized the
remaining claims as invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc.
16). On March 23, 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of
interlocutory appeal. (Doc. 19). On May 16, 2017, the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal,
sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 25).
November 16, 2017, the undersigned notified the plaintiff
that his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which appeared
to concern inadequate medical care and conditions of
confinement, were not directed at any particular defendant.
(Doc. 27). The undersigned ordered the plaintiff to file an
amended complaint, naming as defendants only those persons
who violated his constitutional rights. (Id. at 2).
The undersigned advised the plaintiff to clearly state how
each named defendant violated his constitutional rights, the
date(s) on which the incident(s) occurred, and where the
incident(s) occurred. (Id.).
December 11, 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
naming as defendants Warden Gordy and Warden Thomas. (Doc.
29). On February 1, 2018, the undersigned notified the
plaintiff the amended complaint was also inadequate and
directed him to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 31).
Specifically, the plaintiff named Gordy and Thomas as
defendants and listed numerous causes of action but did not
allege any supporting facts demonstrating how each defendant
personally participated in any of the alleged constitutional
violations. (Id.). On February 20, 2018, the
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. (Doc. 33).
construing the plaintiff's second amended complaint, he
alleges Gordy, Thomas, and Bias have improperly classified
him to the “most restrictive custody” within the
Alabama Department of Corrections. (Doc. 33 at 5). He also
claims Gordy and Thomas-by failing to reclassify him-are
guilty of “kidnapping” him. (Id. at 6).
plaintiff further complains that while he was incarcerated at
Limestone Correctional Facility in 2015, prison officials
sentenced him to 25 days in segregation, but Gordy detained
him in segregation for six additional months, from October
2015 to April 2016. (Doc. 33 at 5, 7). The plaintiff states