Coleman v. Williams (INMATE2)

Filing 50

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/30/2024. (c/s) (LAB)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
JUSTIN D. COLEMAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ADRIANNA WILLIAMS, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:21cv320-MHT
(WO)

JUSTIN D. COLEMAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CHRISTOPHER GORDY, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:21cv386-MHT
(WO)

OPINION
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff, a state
prisoner,

filed

these

two

now-consolidated

lawsuits

claiming that he had been subjected to excessive force.
These

lawsuits

are

now

before

the

court

on

the

recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
that

defendants’

special

report

be

construed

as

a

motion for summary judgment and that the motion for
summary judgment be granted.
to the recommendation.

There are no objections

After an independent and de

novo review of the record, the court concludes that the
magistrate

judge’s

recommendation

should

be

adopted,

with the correction noted below.
The report and recommendation acknowledges that, in
his notarized complaint in the member case (Coleman v.
Gordy, 2:21-cv-386-MHT-SMD), plaintiff claims that “the
3rd Shift Correctional Officers” repeatedly punched and
maced him while he was in handcuffs.
Recommendation (Doc. 49) at 2, n. 2.

See Report and
The report finds

this sworn statement insufficient to overcome a motion
for summary judgment because plaintiff “fails to name
the 3rd Shift Correctional Officers as Defendants and
does not allege that any named Defendant used excessive
force against him while handcuffed.”

See Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 49) at 2, n. 2 (italics added).
On the contrary, plaintiff did attempt to name the
“3rd

Shift

Correctional

Officers
2

(who

responded

to

code) on December 22, 2020” as defendants by including
this description of the defendants in his case style
and in the list of named defendants in his complaint in
the

member

case.

2:21-cv-386-MHT-SMD,
While

See
Complaint

fictitious-party

Coleman
(Doc.

pleading

1)

is

v.
at

Gordy,
1

and

generally

2.
not

allowed in federal court, there is an exception when a
plaintiff provides a clear description of the defendant
sued

that

plaintiff

makes
needs

(11th

person

discovery

defendant’s name.
1215

the

in

identifiable
order

to

but

determine

the
the

See Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210,

Cir.

1992);

Taylor

v.

Brooks,

No.

5:20-CV-467, 2020 WL 3129862 (N.D. Ala. June 12, 2020)
(Smith, J.).

Plaintiff, at least arguably, adequately

pleaded his claims against the fictitious defendants
who he contends beat him while he was in handcuffs, and
with discovery, he could have found out the names of
the

officers

complaint.

described
Indeed,

the

and

served

defendants’

them

with

response

to

the
his

complaints eventually did identify at least one of the
3

officers.

However,

plaintiff

never

amended

his

complaint to name the identified officers as defendants
and never served those individuals with a summons and
complaint.

As a result, plaintiff’s naming of the “3rd

Shift Correctional Officers (who responded to code) on
December

22,

2020”

does

not

save

his

claims

from

summary judgment.
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE, this the 30th day of August, 2024.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4