Maestas-Kaufman v. Bibb County Jail

Filing 31

ORDER that the magistrate's 22 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and ACCEPTED. Certain claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJDUCICE and the remaining claims are REFERRED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings as set out herein. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 9/26/2016. Copy served on plff on this date. (YMB)

FILED
2016 Sep-26 AM 08:57
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION
SAMUEL ALLEN MAESTASKAUFMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHERIFF KEITH HANNAH, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 7:14-cv-02258-AKK-SGC

ORDER
On May 27, 2016, the magistrate judge recommended the following claims
be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2) because
they fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and/or they seek
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief: (1) the claims
against the defendants in their official capacities for monetary relief; (2) the
supervisory liability claims against Sheriff Keith Hannah; (3) the claims against
Officer Christopher Poole; (4) the Fourteenth Amendment excessive force and
conditions of confinement claims against Chief Jason Donner, Officer Tony Wyatt,
Officer Mindy Goodwin, and Kitchen Manager Mrs. Patsy based on his placement
in a suicide cell in September 2013; and (5) the plaintiff’s claims against Officer
Patrick Poole for threats and verbal harassment. Doc. 22 at 19. The magistrate
judge further recommended the following claims be referred to the magistrate

judge for further proceedings: (1) the Fourteenth Amendment excessive force
claim against Officer Patrick Poole; (2) the Fourteenth Amendment excessive force
claim against Officer Alexander Robinson; (3) the Fourteenth Amendment medical
claims against Chief Arthur Harris and Officer Mindy Goodwin; and (4) the
Fourteenth Amendment medical claim against Officer Catherine Crocker. Id. at
19–20.

On July 29, 2016, the plaintiff filed objections to the report and

recommendation. Doc. 29. Within his objections, the plaintiff also requested a
stay of fourteen (14) days to file a second amended complaint. Id. at 2. The
plaintiff’s request for a stay of fourteen (14) days is MOOT. To date, the plaintiff
has not moved for leave to file a second amended complaint.
The plaintiff does not object to the dismissal of his claims against Sheriff
Keith Hannah or Officer Christopher Poole. Doc. 29 at 3. Instead, he clarifies that
he seeks to bring his claims against the remaining defendants in both their official
and individual capacities. Id. As stated in the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants in their official
capacities for monetary relief are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Pennhurst
State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100-01 (1984); Parker v. Williams,
862 F.2d 1471, 1475-76 (11th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by Turquitt
v. Jefferson County, Ala., 137 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 1998); Carr v. City of Florence,
Ala., 916 F.2d 1521, 1527 (11th Cir. 1990). Moreover, the plaintiff cannot pursue
2

injunctive relief from the defendants in their official capacities because he is no
longer an inmate at the Bibb County Jail. Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255, 1267
(11th Cir. 2007), abrogated on other grounds by Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277
(2011). Therefore, the magistrate judge appropriately analyzed the remainder of
the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants in their individual capacities.
Next, the plaintiff attempts to set forth new allegations in support of his
claims against some of the defendants. Doc. 29 at 3–7. The plaintiff alleges
“someone” at the Bibb County Jail confiscated his legal mail and documents
during his transfer to ADOC and, therefore, he was not able to submit “specific
details” in his amended complaint about the events made the basis of this action.
Id. at 3. The plaintiff now sets forth pages of new allegations in his objections
which is his “best recollection by memory.” Id. The court will not entertain new
allegations raised in the plaintiff’s objections because the magistrate judge
expressly informed the plaintiff that his “[o]bjections should not contain new
allegations, present additional evidence, or repeat legal arguments.” Doc. 22 at 20.
To the extent the plaintiff’s objections can be construed as a motion to
amend the complaint, it is due to be denied. Motions to amend are addressed to the
sound discretion of the trial judge. See, e.g., Gramegna v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 675,
678 (11th Cir. 1988); Espey v. Wainwright, 734 F.2d 748, 750 (11th Cir. 1984).
While “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ.
3

P. 15(a), it is clear that “a motion to amend may be denied on numerous grounds,
such as undue delay, undue prejudice to the defendants, and futility of the
amendment,” Carruthers v. BSA Advertising, Inc., 357 F.3d 1213, 1218 (11th Cir.
2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover,
courts may consider such factors as the amount of time and
opportunities the movant has had to seek leave to amend, whether the
proposed amendment is such that [it] could have been added shortly
after the complaint was filed, whether allowance of the proposed
amendment would . . . [require] additional discovery, whether the
movant has attempted to justify any delay, and whether the impetus
behind the filing of the motion was the prior filing of a motion for
summary judgment after full discovery.
O’Brien v. Union Oil Co.of Cal., 699 F. Supp. 1562, 1571 (N.D. Ga. 1988).
The amendment would be improper here because of undue delay.
Specifically, the plaintiff claims a member of the jail staff confiscated his legal
documents when he was transferred, thereby preventing him from submitting
“specific details” about his claims in his amended complaint.

Doc. 29 at 3.

However, the plaintiff fails to explain why he could not have amended his
complaint to set forth these allegations prior to his transfer from Bibb County Jail
to ADOC custody. For example, the plaintiff filed his amended complaint on May
26, 2015, 1 doc. 16 at 4, some nine months, according to the ADOC’s website,
1

Because a prisoner proceeding pro se has virtually no control over the mailing of his pleading,
it is deemed to be filed at the time the prisoner delivers the pleading to prison or jail officials to
be mailed. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-72 (1988). However, the plaintiff failed to
date his amended complaint when he signed it. Doc. 16 at 4. Therefore, the record contains no
information regarding the date the plaintiff gave his amended complaint to prison officials to
4

before his transfer to state custody on March 12, 2016.2 The plaintiff has offered
no explanation for why he did not seek leave to file a second amended complaint to
set forth these additional facts during this nine month period. Moreover, the
plaintiff does not allege that these facts were unknown to him when he filed his
original amended complaint. Given that the plaintiff now recites nearly five pages
worth of additional facts from “memory,” see doc. 29 at 3, the plaintiff would face
a difficult task to establish that these were facts not known to him. Therefore, to
the extent the plaintiff’s objections can be construed as a motion to amend the
complaint, the motion is DENIED.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the
court file, including the report and recommendation, and the objections thereto, the
magistrate judge’s report is ADOPTED and the recommendation is ACCEPTED.
The court ORDERS that the following claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2): (1) the claims against the
defendants in their official capacities for monetary relief; (2) the supervisory
liability claims against Sheriff Keith Hannah; (3) the claims against Officer
Christopher Poole; (4) the Fourteenth Amendment excessive force and conditions
of confinement claims against Chief Jason Donner, Officer Tony Wyatt, Officer
mail. The court will therefore deem the plaintiff’s amended complaint to have been filed on May
26, 2015, when it was received by the Clerk.
2

See http://www.doc.state.al.us/InmateHistory.aspx .
5

Mindy Goodwin, and Kitchen Manager Mrs. Patsy based on his placement in a
suicide cell in September 2013; and (5) the claims against Officer Patrick Poole for
threats and verbal harassment.
The court further ORDERS that the following claims are REFERRED to
the magistrate judge for further proceedings: (1) the Fourteenth Amendment
excessive force claim against Officer Patrick Poole; (2) the Fourteenth Amendment
excessive force claim against Officer Alexander Robinson; (3) the Fourteenth
Amendment medical claims against Chief Arthur Harris and Officer Mindy
Goodwin; and (4) the Fourteenth Amendment medical claim against Officer
Catherine Crocker.
DONE the 26th day of September, 2016.

_________________________________
ABDUL K. KALLON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6