Jonathan Patton v. Corrections Officer Rowell, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Jonathan L. Patton. Decision: Affirmed. 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: 16-10492

Date Filed: 02/02/2017

Page: 1 of 9

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-10492
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:15-cv-00025-LGW-RSB

JONATHAN L. PATTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CORRECTIONS OFFICER ROWELL,
(COI),
CORRECTIONS OFFICER FARNSWORTH,
(COII), et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(February 2, 2017)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-10492

Date Filed: 02/02/2017

Page: 2 of 9

Plaintiff Jonathan L. Patton is an inmate at Ware State Prison. Proceeding
pro se, he alleges that carelessness on the part of Correctional Officers Rowell and
Farnsworth allowed a fellow inmate, Tyler Grogan, to escape his cell and that
Grogan stabbed Patton several times while Officers Rowell and Farnsworth
allegedly ran away. Patton brought suit against the officers, their supervisor, and
the warden of the prison, on a variety of theories of liability under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The district court dismissed his claims; this is his appeal.
I.
Because we are reviewing the district court’s dismissal of Patton’s claims,
we assume all facts alleged in the complaint are true. Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d
1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006).
Patton is in the J-1 Dormitory, which is “Tier II” housing, meaning that it
houses inmates “considered [to be] a threat to the welfare of the institution.” One
night Grogan, who is another J-1 resident, was able to escape from the showers and
return to his cell undetected. There, he “stuck tissue” into his cell door’s locking
mechanism, which prevented it from locking properly. He then tried to sneak back
into the shower, but he was caught by Officers Rowell and Farnsworth. They
escorted Grogan back to his cell and shut the door, but they “never checked” the
door lock and they “knowingly” left the slide bolt unlatched.

2

Case: 16-10492

Date Filed: 02/02/2017

Page: 3 of 9

The officers took Patton to the showers next. While he was there, Grogan
left his cell through the unlocked door and entered Patton’s cell. When Officers
Rowell and Farnsworth took Patton back to his cell after the shower, Grogan
attacked Patton with a knife. The officers ran away while a guard in the control
room called for backup. Patton was rushed to the medical ward, where he was
housed for two days so that he could recover from multiple stab wounds.
Patton brought suit against Officers Rowell and Farnsworth under § 1983,
contending that their failure to stop Grogan’s attack violated the Eighth
Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. He also asserted
claims against J-1’s supervisor, Nathan Brooks, for failure to supervise, and the
warden of Ware State Prison, Tom Gramiak, for failure to train J-1 correctional
officers. A magistrate judge, in a report and recommendation, recommended
dismissing all of Patton’s claims for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. He also recommended denying Patton’s request for the appointment of
counsel.
Patton objected to several aspects of the report and recommendation. As to
the claims against Officers Rowell and Farnsworth, he pointed out that he had
alleged that they “knowingly” left the slide bolt off Grogan’s door. He also argued
that they had violated Tier II safety procedures and that those violations could
amount to an unconstitutional failure to protect. As to his claims against Brooks
3

Case: 16-10492

Date Filed: 02/02/2017

Page: 4 of 9

and Warden Gramiak, he argued that the allegations in his complaint were not
conclusory.
The district court overruled all of Patton’s objections and adopted the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, dismissing all of Patton’s claims.
II.
“A district court’s decision to dismiss for failure to state a claim under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A is reviewed de novo . . . .” Boxer X, 437 F.3d at 1110. “We must
determine whether [Patton] presented sufficient allegations of constitutional
violations to survive a motion to dismiss,” meaning that we assess Patton’s claims
under the same rules that apply to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
dismissals. See id. Accordingly, Patton’s “[f]actual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the
allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Butler v. Sheriff of
Palm Beach Cty., 685 F.3d 1261, 1265 (11th Cir. 2012).
A.
Patton contends that Officers Rowell and Farnsworth violated his
constitutional rights by failing to protect him from Grogan’s attack. He first argues
that the officers’ failure to ensure that Grogan could not leave his cell to attack
Patton violated the Eighth Amendment.

4

Case: 16-10492

Date Filed: 02/02/2017

Page: 5 of 9

“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.” Lane v. Philbin, 835 F.3d 1302,
1307 (11th Cir. 2016). That means that Patton “must allege facts sufficient to
show (1) a substantial risk of serious harm; (2) the defendants’ deliberate
indifference to that risk; and (3) causation.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).
Deliberate indifference, in turn, has its own three elements: “(1) subjective
knowledge of a risk of serious harm” and the (2) disregarding of that risk by
(3) conduct that is more than negligent. Id. at 1308. Put another way, to be
deliberately indifferent, a prison official “must both be aware of facts from which
the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he
must also draw the inference.” Purcell ex rel. Estate of Morgan v. Toombs
County, 400 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2005).
Here, Patton failed to allege that Officers Rowell and Farnsworth acted with
deliberate indifference because he did not allege that they subjectively knew the
risk to Patton. True, he alleged that they “knowingly” did not latch Grogan’s cell
door’s slide bolt. But his complaint states that they “never checked” the door’s
locking mechanism, which means that they could not have known that Grogan had
managed to keep the door from locking. That the officers should have, but did not,
check the door for that possibility may indicate that they were negligent, but
5

Case: 16-10492

Date Filed: 02/02/2017

Page: 6 of 9

negligence is not enough to violate the Eighth Amendment. See Lane, 835 F.3d at
1308. Without an allegation that the officers knew the risk, Patton failed to state a
claim for relief on this point.
Along the same lines, Patton also argues that Officers Rowell and
Farnsworth violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to intervene once Grogan
attacked him. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation explained that
Patton had not alleged sufficient facts to support a failure to protect claim. In his
written objections, Patton objected to the report’s recommendations regarding the
officers’ failure to check Grogan’s door before the attack. However, Patton never
argued in his objections that he had asserted a viable claim that the officers had
violated his constitutional rights by failing to intervene once the attack started.
Under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate
judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation
. . . waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.” The report and recommendation
specifically warned Patton that he must object within fourteen days of the report
and that “[a]ny objections asserting that the [m]agistrate [j]udge failed to address
any contention raised in the [c]omplaint must be included in his written
objections.” And the report also warned that a failure to object would “bar any
later challenge or review of the factual findings or conclusions of the [m]agistrate
6

Case: 16-10492

Date Filed: 02/02/2017

Page: 7 of 9

[j]udge.” Because Patton did not heed those warnings, he waived his argument
that the officers violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to stop Grogan’s attack
once it began.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Patton’s failure to
protect claims against Officers Rowell and Farnsworth.
B.
Patton’s failure to state a claim that Officers Rowell and Farnsworth violated
his constitutional rights also dooms his claims for supervisory liability against
Brooks and Warden Gramiak.
As a supervisor, Brooks “is only liable under § 1983 for the unconstitutional
acts of his subordinates if he personally participated in the allegedly
unconstitutional conduct, or his actions were causally connected to the alleged
constitutional deprivation.” Campbell v. Johnson, 586 F.3d 835, 840 (11th Cir.
2009). Patton did not allege that Brooks personally participated in the attack.
And, as we have already discussed, Patton has failed to sufficiently allege that
there was an underlying constitutional deprivation by Brooks’ subordinates. As a
result, Brooks’ actions could not be causally connected to a constitutional
deprivation. See Campbell v. Sikes, 169 F.3d 1353, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999)
(explaining that without a constitutional violation by a subordinate there could be
no supervisory liability).
7

Case: 16-10492

Date Filed: 02/02/2017

Page: 8 of 9

Likewise, Warden Gramiak would only be liable on a failure to train theory
if he had “actual or constructive notice that a particular omission in [his] training
program causes [his] employees to violate citizens’ constitutional rights, and that
armed with that knowledge [he] chose to retain that training program.” Keith v.
DeKalb County, 749 F.3d 1034, 1052 (11th Cir. 2014). Because Patton did not
plead facts sufficient to state a claim that any violation of constitutional rights
occurred, his failure to train claim against Warden Gramiak must fail.
As a result, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Patton’s claims against
Brooks and Warden Gramiak.
III.
Finally, Patton contends that the district court erred by not appointing
counsel to represent him in this case. We review “a district court’s decision not to
appoint counsel for abuse of discretion.” Smith v. Sch. Bd., 487 F.3d 1361, 1365
(11th Cir. 2007). “Appointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional
right. It is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances, such as
where the facts and legal issues are so novel or complex as to require the assistance
of a trained practitioner.” Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088, 1096 (11th Cir. 1990).
For example, in Fowler we denied the appointment of counsel because the
“plaintiff’s claims [we]re relatively straightforward and involve[d] incidents which
took place in the prison, most of which plaintiff witnessed himself.” Id. This case
8

Case: 16-10492

Date Filed: 02/02/2017

Page: 9 of 9

does not present “exceptional circumstances.” Instead, it is akin to Fowler, with a
straightforward set of alleged facts in a well-developed area of law. The district
court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint counsel for Patton.
AFFIRMED.

9