Steve Morris v. Hays SP Warden, et al
Filing
Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Steve A. Morris. Decision: Reversed and Remanded. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.
Case: 14-13005
Date Filed: 01/14/2016
Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-13005
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cv-00204-HLM
STEVE A. MORRIS,
Plaintiff- Appellee,
versus
HAYS SP WARDEN, et al,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(January 14, 2016)
Before HULL, MARCUS, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-13005
Date Filed: 01/14/2016
Page: 2 of 5
Steve A. Morris, a Georgia prisoner, appeals the district court’s dismissal of
his civil rights claim. After review of the parties’ briefs and the record, we reverse
and remand for further proceedings.
I
In August of 2013, Mr. Morris filed a civil rights complaint, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, naming as defendants the Warden at Hays State Prison (HSP); two
unnamed corrections officers at HSP; and the members of HSP’s Certified
Emergency Response Team. Mr. Morris alleged that he was pepper-sprayed by
two corrections officers, and then beaten by the Emergency Response Team
members, while handcuffed because he overslept one morning. According to the
complaint, the incident took place in January or February “1-2 years ago,” i.e., in
January or February of 2011 or 2012. Mr. Morris sought damages and injunctive
relief.
A magistrate judge reviewed Mr. Morris’ case and conducted an initial
screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The magistrate judge concluded that if
the events in Mr. Morris’ complaint occurred in January or February of 2011, then
the complaint could be untimely. Assuming the complaint was timely, Mr. Morris
needed to ascertain the names of the two corrections officers and the members of
the Emergency Response Team and submit them in an amended complaint. Mr.
Morris did file an amended complaint, but alleged (1) that he was unaware of the
2
Case: 14-13005
Date Filed: 01/14/2016
Page: 3 of 5
names of the corrections officers and the Emergency Response Team members and
(2) that he had post-traumatic stress disorder and did not know the “exact time” of
the incident he complained of. Mr. Morris stated that the district court would need
to request records from HSP to obtain the names of the potential defendants and
the date of the incident in question.
The magistrate judge issued a final report and recommendation
recommending that Mr. Morris’ complaint be dismissed because it required the
court to speculate as to whether it was timely, and because Mr. Morris had not
named the individuals who had pepper-sprayed him and beaten him. Mr. Morris
filed objections, arguing in part he could not name the individual defendants
because (1) his legal paperwork (which contained the names on the tags of the two
corrections officers who pepper-sprayed him) was stolen; (2) members of the
Emergency Response team do not wear name tags and do not share their names
with inmates, and (3) prison officials would not give him the information needed to
name the individual defendants.
The district court adopted the report and
dismissed the complaint as frivolous.
II
A complaint is frivolous when “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in
fact.” See Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). We review a district
court’s sua sponte dismissal of a complaint as frivolous for abuse of discretion.
3
Case: 14-13005
Date Filed: 01/14/2016
Page: 4 of 5
Nietzke, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A district court abuses its discretion if it
applies the wrong legal standard, See Ameritox, Ltd. v. Millenium Laboratories,
Inc., 803 F.3d 518 (11th Cir. 2015), and that is what happened here.
First, Mr. Morris asserted a time-frame in which the incident in question
occurred that either could or could not have been time-barred. He also alleged
that, because of his PTSD, he could not recall the “exact time” of the incidents he
complained of. Because it is not clear from the “face of the complaint” that Mr.
Morris’ complaint was time-barred, the action should not have been dismissed
based on a statute of limitations bar. See La Grasta v. First Union Securities, Inc.,
358 F.3d 840, 845 (11th Cir. 2004) (“a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissed on statute of
limitations grounds is appropriate only if it is ‘apparent from the face of the
complaint’ that the claim is time-barred”) (citation omitted).
Second, although Mr. Morris failed to provide the names of the various
individuals working at the prison who pepper-sprayed and beat him, we have
allowed the initial use of an unnamed defendant where discovery would likely
uncover that defendant’s identity. See Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 740
(11th Cir. 2010) (holding that remand to the district court was necessary to
determine whether the unnamed prison guard/defendant could be located with
reasonable effort); Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1215-16 (11th Cir. 1992)
(allowing joinder of John Doe defendant where the pro se plaintiff sufficiently
4
Case: 14-13005
Date Filed: 01/14/2016
Page: 5 of 5
identified the defendant as the supervising officer and discovery would provide the
plaintiff with the information necessary to identify that defendant). In this case,
the missing information could be ascertained through discovery. We note also that
Mr. Morris provided an explanation for not being able to name the officer on the
Emergency Response Team: members of that Team do not wear name tags, and
prison officials would not provide him with information to identify those officers.
III
The district court incorrectly dismissed Mr. Morris’ complaint as frivolous.
We reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?