James Logan v. Edward Hall, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant James Alexander Logan. Decision: Affirmed in part, Vacated and Remanded in part. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 14-11761

Date Filed: 03/20/2015

Page: 1 of 6

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-11761
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:14-cv-00310-MMH-JRK
JAMES ALEXANDER LOGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
EDWARD HALL,
Sgt.,
LARRY GREEN,
Officer,
BRADLEY MCKINNEY,
Officer,
KATHERINE BURDIN,
Nurse,
JOSHUA HODGES,
Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(March 20, 2015)

Case: 14-11761

Date Filed: 03/20/2015

Page: 2 of 6

Before MARCUS, JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
James Logan, a pro se Florida prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his
complaint, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which alleged violations of his
constitutional rights and sought criminal charges against the named defendants.
On appeal, Logan argues that the district court: (1) erred in dismissing his
complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), because he
stated a cognizable claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; and
(2) failed to recognize its statutory authority to impose criminal charges against the
defendants. After careful review, we affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.
The PLRA provides, inter alia, that an in forma pauperis action shall be
dismissed at any time if it (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who
is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We review a district
court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
using the same standards that govern Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissals. Mitchell v.
Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997). Thus, we review the dismissal de
novo and accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true. Id.
Pro se pleadings are held to a less demanding standard than counseled
pleadings and should be liberally construed. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160
2

Case: 14-11761

Date Filed: 03/20/2015

Page: 3 of 6

(11th Cir. 2003). This liberal construction, though, does not give a court license to
rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action. GJR Invs.,
Inc. v. Cnty. of Escambia, Florida, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998),
overruled on other grounds by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). The factual
allegations in the complaint must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the
defendant deprived him of a right secured under the Constitution or federal law,
and (2) the deprivation occurred under color of state law. See Bingham v. Thomas,
654 F.3d 1171, 1175 (11th Cir. 2011). A plaintiff may recover damages in a §
1983 action for monetary loss, physical pain and suffering, mental and emotional
distress, impairment of reputation, and personal humiliation. Slicker v. Jackson,
215 F.3d 1225, 1231 (11th Cir. 2000).
The PLRA provides, however, that a prisoner may not bring an action “for
mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of
physical injury or commission of a sexual act.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). Section
1997e(e) is an affirmative defense -- not a jurisdictional limitation -- and the
district court may sua sponte dismiss a claim where the allegations show that this
defense would bar recovery. Douglas v. Yates, 535 F.3d 1316, 1320-21 (11th Cir.
2008). We have held that more than a de minimis physical injury is needed to
3

Case: 14-11761

Date Filed: 03/20/2015

Page: 4 of 6

satisfy the requirements of § 1997e(e). Harris v. Garner, 190 F.3d 1279, 1286-87
(11th Cir.), vacated, 197 F.3d 1059 (11th Cir. 1999), reinstated in relevant part,
216 F.3d 970, 972, 985 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). While the phrase “greater than
de minimis” has not been clearly defined, we have held that the injury need not be
significant. Id. at 1286. However, “routine discomfort is part of the penalty that
criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society.” Id. (quotations omitted).
We have held that Harris and its progeny determined that § 1997e(e)
foreclosed claims for both compensatory and punitive damages.

Al-Amin v.

Smith, 637 F.3d 1192, 1197-98 (11th Cir. 2011). Nominal damages, however, are
not precluded by § 1997e(e). Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255, 1271 (11th Cir.
2007), abrogated on other grounds by Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. ___, ___, 131
S.Ct. 1651, 1657 n.3 (2011). Nominal damages are appropriate “if a plaintiff
establishes a violation of a fundamental constitutional right, even if he cannot
prove actual injury sufficient to entitle him to compensatory damages.” Hughes,
350 F.3d at 1162. Specifically, a district court may award nominal damages to
remedy a First Amendment violation. Pelphrey v. Cobb County, Ga., 547 F.3d
1263, 1282 (11th Cir. 2008).
While a pro se plaintiff may not have requested nominal damages
specifically in his complaint, in light of the liberal construction afforded pro se
pleadings, a district court should consider whether such damages are recoverable
4

Case: 14-11761

Date Filed: 03/20/2015

before dismissing a complaint.

Page: 5 of 6

See Hughes, 350 F.3d at 1162-63; see also

Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(c) (stating that, except for default judgments, “[e]very other final
judgment should grant the relief to which each party is entitled, even if the party
has not demanded that relief in its pleading”).
We held that “First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances are violated when a prisoner is punished for
filing a grievance concerning the conditions of his imprisonment.” Yates, 535 F.3d
at 1321 (quotation omitted). To state a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must establish
that (1) his speech or act was constitutionally protected; (2) the defendant’s
retaliatory conduct adversely affected the protected speech; and (3) there is a
causal connection between the retaliatory actions and the adverse effect on speech.
Id. An inmate raises a First Amendment claim of retaliation if he shows that a
prison official disciplined him for filing a grievance or lawsuit concerning the
conditions of his imprisonment. Wildberger v. Bracknell, 869 F.2d 1467, 1468
(11th Cir. 1989).
Here, the district court correctly determined that Logan failed to allege a
claim for compensatory or punitive damages. Among other things, he did not
allege physical injury, and his allegation that he was subjected to additional close
management and disciplinary confinement could not satisfy the PLRA’s physical
injury requirement. See 28 U.S.C. 1997e(e); Harris, 190 F.3d at 1286. The district
5

Case: 14-11761

Date Filed: 03/20/2015

Page: 6 of 6

court also correctly concluded that it was without authority to order an
investigation to the criminal acts alleged in the complaint, since that responsibility
is entrusted to the executive branch of the government and not the judiciary. See
United States v. Smith, 231 F.3d 800, 807 (11th Cir. 2000) (noting that the
decision as to which crimes and criminals to prosecute is entrusted by the
Constitution to the executive branch).
However, construed liberally, the complaint sufficiently alleged a claim for
retaliation in violation of Logan’s First Amendment rights. Specifically, Logan
alleged that, in retaliation for filing lawsuits and grievances, prison officials
deliberately falsified reports, which resulted in him spending excessive time in
disciplinary and close-management confinement and losing his yard privileges.
These allegations state a First Amendment claim of retaliation, which warrants
nominal damages if proven true. See Pelphrey, 547 F.3d at 1282; Wildberger, 869
F.2d at 1468. Thus, the district court erred in dismissing the complaint without
considering whether, under the principle of liberal construction for pro se
pleadings, Logan’s complaint could be construed as requesting nominal damages.
See Hughes, 350 F.3d at 1160, 1162-63.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

6