Moore v. Entrekin et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 10/17/2017. (KEK)
2017 Oct-17 PM 01:05
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CORION LESHON MOORE,
SHERIFF TODD ENTREKIN, et al.,
Case No. 4:17-cv-00092-MHH-JEO
On April 18, 2017, the magistrate judge filed a report in which he
recommended, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), that the Court dismiss this action
without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
(Doc. 12). The magistrate judge notified plaintiff Corion Leshon Moore of his
right to file specific written objections to the report and recommendation within 14
days. (Doc. 12, pp. 17-18). Mr. Moore filed two motions for extensions of time to
file objections, and the magistrate judge granted both motions. (Docs. 13, 14, 15,
On June 6, 2017, Mr. Moore filed objections to the report and
recommendation (Doc. 17) and a motion for production of documents (Doc. 18).
On August 2, 2017, Mr. Moore filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental
complaint. (Doc. 19).
Mr. Moore wishes to supplement his previous complaints (Docs. 1, 10) to
address the following “events that happened after the filing of the original
complaint:” “the denial of access to an adequate use of a law library, policies
regarding visitation, policies regarding free exercise of religion, food, exercise, air
quality and temperature, clothing, sanitation, personal hygiene and overcrowding.”
(Doc. 19, pp. 1-2). Mr. Moore contends that the “totality of the conditions” at
“Etowah County Detention Center . . . add up to create an overall effect that is
unconstitutional.” (Id. at 1).
The Court denies Mr. Moore’s motion for leave to file a supplemental
complaint. (Doc. 19). The motion contains only a list of general and conclusory
constitutional violations and provides no specific information about how Mr.
Moore would adequately plead that a particular defendant allegedly committed the
purported constitutional violations.
As the magistrate judge explained in his
report, “to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, ‘a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’” (Doc. 12, p. 2) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009)). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported
by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Based on
the information that Mr. Moore provided in his motion to supplement, it appears
that a second amendment to the complaint would be futile.
The Court now turns to Mr. Moore’s objections to the report and
recommendation. A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part,
the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). When a party objects to a report and recommendation, the district
court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.
The Court reviews for plain error proposed factual findings to which no objection
is made, and the Court reviews propositions of law de novo. Garvey v. Vaughn,
993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d
1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984)
(“The failure to object to the magistrate’s findings of fact prohibits an attack on
appeal of the factual findings adopted by the district court except on grounds of
plain error or manifest injustice.”) (internal citation omitted); Macort v. Prem, Inc.,
208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
Mr. Moore does not object to the magistrate judge’s description of the facts
underlying his claim and generally repeats the legal arguments made in the
complaint and amended complaint. (Doc. 17). Citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.
41 (1957), Mr. Moore objects to dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted because “the complaint may not be dismissed
‘unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’” (Doc. 17, pp. 1, 6,
quoting Conley, 355 U.S. at 45-46).
The Court overrules Mr. Moore’s objection. Ten years ago, the United
States Supreme Court retired the Conley v. Gibson “‘no set of facts’” standard and
replaced it with a “plausibility” standard. Simpson v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 744
F.3d. 702, 714 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 562-63 (2007)); see p. 2 above. Under the plausibility standard, a plaintiff’s
factual allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Mr. Moore’s factual allegations do not plausibly suggest that the condition
of his bunk bed presented an “objectively serious” danger. Brown v. Johnson, 387
F.3d 1344, 1351 (11th Cir. 2004). Moreover, Mr. Moore alleges no facts from
which a factfinder reasonably could infer that any of the named defendants had
“subjective knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm” to Mr. Moore before
the top bunk gave way on December 28, 2016 and recklessly disregarded the
substantial risk. (Id.).
Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s report and accepts his
recommendation. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court will dismiss this
action without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. There is no reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence to
support the necessary elements of a Fourteenth Amendment conditions claim, and,
as discussed, an amendment to the complaint would be futile. Therefore, the Court
denies Mr. Moore’s motion for production of documents (Doc. 18) and his motion
for permission to file a supplemental complaint. (Doc. 19).
The Court will enter a separate final order consistent with this memorandum
DONE and ORDERED this October 17, 2017.
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?