Shapley v. Price et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 6/26/15. (SAC )

FILED
2015 Jun-26 PM 03:41
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHAUN G. SHAPELY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WARDEN CHERYL PRICE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:13-cv-01627-WMA-JHE

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Shaun G. Shapely filed his original complaint in this action on August 30, 2013,
alleging that the living conditions at Donaldson Correction Facility were deplorable. (Doc. 1). He
filed these allegations as a putative class action on behalf of himself and all other inmates at
Donaldson Correctional Center. In that complaint, the plaintiff sought declaratory relief that the
conditions of the prison violate the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Id., at 32). The
court then considered the variety of motions the plaintiff had filed, including a motion for leave to
file an amended complaint. (Docs. 12 & 14). The motion for leave to file an amended complaint
was granted, and the plaintiff was informed that the amended complaint should include all of the
plaintiff's claims. (Doc. 14 at 2). The plaintiff was further advised that the court would consider
only the claims set forth in his amended complaint. (Id. at 2-3). The plaintiff sought and received
an extension of time to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 15 & text order dated December 6, 2013).
The plaintiff filed his amended complaint on December 19, 2013. (Doc. 16). In that
pleading, seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, the plaintiff sued Cheryl Price,
Warden of Donaldson Correctional Facility, Cedric Sparks, also a Warden of Donaldson

Correctional Facility, Sara Coatney, a correctional officer, and T. Keyes, also a correctional officer.
He alleged he was transferred to Donaldson on March 23, 2012, and held in segregation until August
2012, when he was released from segregation and “placed in and around violent dangerous inmates.”
(Doc. 16 at 6). He requested access to a law library on March 23, 2012, but was denied and only
allowed one day a week in which to go to the law library. (Id. at 9). Plaintiff alleged this was
Officer T. Keyes’s fault because Officer Keyes allowed other prisoners access to the law library.
(Id.). Throughout 2012 and 2013 Officer Keyes continued to deny his access “to an adequate law
library and reasonable time for research.” (Id., at 10). The plaintiff further alleged that the times
provided and the library clerk were insufficient given he had five (5) pending cases. (Id.).
The plaintiff was stabbed by a fellow inmate on October 26, 2012, while in a wheelchair.
(Doc. 16 at 6). At some point, unnamed prison officials attempted to file a false disciplinary report
against him to justify their failure to protect him. (Id. at 7). In November 2012, the plaintiff was
transferred to Dorm Y-3, where he was robbed “of his property” while correctional officers did
nothing. (Id.). On January 13, 2013, he was assaulted by another inmate and while a body chart was
completed, he was not seen by a doctor for his injuries or for injuries to his neck and back where he
had a cervical fusion. (Id.). The plaintiff has pre-existing medical conditions for which he did not
receiving adequate treatment. (Id.). On May 7, 2013 through May 23, 2013, the plaintiff’s
medications, wheel chair, and cane were taken from him by unnamed prison guards. (Doc. 16 at 78). On October 15 and 16, 2013, the plaintiff was again denied his medication, including medicine
for his blood pressure. (Id., at 8). The plaintiff was then transferred to Dorm X-17, which he
described as more violent. (Id.). The cell continually flooded from an upstairs toilet, and the shower
and shower floors were inadequate and did not work. (Id.). Most of Dorm X inmates were
homosexuals, and, although he requested to be moved back to “the religious faith based Dorm L,”

Warden Price refused that request. (Id. at 8). Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that the problem
with pill call was due to a lack of standard operating procedures, and he was being punished by being
denied access to the Law Library. (Id. at 9). On August 26, 2013, Officer Sara Coatney failed to
deliver a summons to the plaintiff resulting in a default judgment being taken against him. (Id.).
He also had to be treated for scabies on November 15, 2013, which was evidence of the unsafe and
dirty living conditions. (Id. at 10-11). The plaintiff asserted the defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his medical needs, including the use of an assistive device for walking, denied him
access to the law library and interfered with his need for legal assistance, harassed him and failed
to protect him from other inmate assaults, and retaliated against him for his complaints against prison
officers. (Id., at 12-13).
The plaintiff next filed a motion to supplement on July 7, 2014, seeking to add claims under
the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Doc. 17). On August 8, 2014, the plaintiff filed another
motion to supplement due to further instances of inadequate medical care and retaliation for seeking
medical care. (Doc. 18).
The plaintiff was ordered on October 27, 2014, to re-plead his complaint in full. (Doc. 19).
That order noted the plaintiff had filed more than ninety (90) pages of narrative naming a variety of
defendants, but none of which alleged precisely how any named defendant had violated the plaintiff's
constitutional rights. The court set forth the reasons those “shotgun” pleadings violated the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and afforded the plaintiff the opportunity to correct the deficits. (Id.). The
court specifically instructed:
The plaintiff is therefore ORDERED to re-plead his complaint. The plaintiff MUST
comply with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
3

draft his complaint in a way that allows the Court to accurately determine the specific
claims he is asserting against each named defendant.
The plaintiff must complete a new § 1983 complaint form and submit it to the Court
within thirty (30) days. The new complaint must be labeled “Final Amended
Complaint” and the case number “2:13-cv-01627-WMA-JHE” must be written on
the first page. Additionally, the plaintiff should comply with the following guidelines
in submitting his final amended complaint to the Court:
In the final amended complaint, the plaintiff should name as
defendants only those persons who he claims violated his
constitutional rights and he must identify those same persons as
defendants both in the heading and in Part III of the complaint form.
He should also state clearly how each named defendant violated his
constitutional rights, the date(s) on which the incident(s) occurred,
and where the incident(s) occurred. However, the plaintiff is
WARNED that unrelated claims against different defendants
must not be combined into one lawsuit and will not be allowed.
See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007); see also,
Johnson v. Cummings, 2010 WL 749328 (S.D. Ala.). The final
amended complaint should not refer back to the original complaint or
supplemental documents, as the Court will consider only those claims
that are set forth in the final amended complaint. The plaintiff
should not provide his legal theories and conclusions, but should
provide the court with a SHORT AND PRECISE recitation of the
facts in support of each claim against each defendant.
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
WILL RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION WITHOUT FURTHER
NOTICE. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
(Doc. 19).
The plaintiff again moved for extension of time, (doc. 20), which was again granted. (Doc.
21). In the Order granting that motion, the plaintiff was
ADVISED his final amended complaint should not be a lengthy narrative pleading.
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that a complaint set forth
a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, and Rule
10(b) requires discrete claims be pled in separate counts. Finally, the plaintiff is
reminded that the final amended complaint should not refer back to the original or
amended complaints and that unrelated claims against different defendants belong
in separate suits.

(Doc. 21). The plaintiff then filed yet another motion for extension of time, (doc. 22), which was
again granted. (Doc. 23).
On February 6, 2015, the plaintiff filed a “Final Amended Complaint.” (Doc. 24). In that
pleading, the plaintiff named as defendants Warden Cheryl Price, Warden Cedric Spears, Sara
Coatney, T. Keys, Nurse Practitioner Butler, Nurse Hallmark, Officer Newman, Officer Willis,
Officer Heflin, Monika Gadson, Sgt. Taylor, Nurse Hatworth, Nurse Carlisle, Sgt. Sanders, Sgt.
Jones, Ms. Johnson Chief Steward, and Officer Mason. (Doc. 24 at 5). The Final Amended
Complaint fails to set forth any claim against any of these defendants. Rather, in descriptions labeled
as “Counts,” the plaintiff lists the job description of each of the defendants. Then, in complete
disregard of the court's prior orders, the plaintiff references “complaints” filed with this court on
October 27, 2014,1 and August 30, 2013. For example, Count 6 reads, in total, as follows:
COUNT 6
NURSE HALL MARCK
WILLIAM E. DONALDSON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
THE PLAINTIFF CONTENDS THAT NURSE HALLMARK IS PRESENTLY
EMPLOYED WITH CORIZON HEALTH SERVICES WHO PROVIDES
MEDICAL SERVICES TO INMATES OF THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, NURSE HALLMARK IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SCREENING
INMATES WHO COMPLAIN OF MEDICAL PROBLEMS, THE PLAINTIFF
WISHES TO SUPPLEMENT ALL FORMAL COMPLAINTS AND AFFIDAVITS
INTO THIS FINAL AMENDED COMPLAINT.
(Doc. 24 at 7-8).
On May 11, 2015, the plaintiff filed yet another motion to supplement. (Doc. 25). That
thirty-two (32) page document contains a two page narrative focused on allegations of wrongdoing
1

The only document filed on October 27, 2014, was this court’s Order to the plaintiff setting
forth instructions for filing an amended complaint.
5

by an “Officer Herring” who is not a party to this action. (Id. at 1-2). It also attaches disciplinary
reports, multiple narrative “Affidavit/Complaints,” and several pages of canteen sales receipts.
This Court can dismiss an action for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure or Orders of this Court. See e.g., Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.1989)
(“While dismissal is an extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where
the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion”); Hernandez v. Charlotte
Corr. Inst., 394 Fed. Appx. 667 (11th Cir. 2010) (affirming dismissal of prisoner civil rights
complaint for plaintiff’s repeated failure to cure Rule 8 deficiencies by amendments previously
allowed); Tanner v. Neal, 232 Fed. Appx. 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of prisoner’s
civil rights complaint for plaintiff’s failure to cure pleading deficiencies noted in court’s prior order
directing amendment). The plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the court’s order of
October 27, 2014, would result in the dismissal of this action. Yet, rather than following the court’s
instructions, the plaintiff has continued to file “amended complaints” and “motions to supplement”
which name multiple defendants against whom the plaintiff states no causes of action, conclusory
claims without any factual background, and factual statements unrelated to named defendants or
causes of action. Due to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with previous orders of this Court and his
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, this action is due to be dismissed and will
be dismissed by separate order.
DONE this 26th day of June, 2015.

____________________________________
WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE