Logan v. Hall et al

Filing 5

ORDER dismissing case, with directions to the Clerk. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 4/10/2014. (DD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
JAMES ALEXANDER LOGAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:14-cv-310-J-34JRK

SERGEANT EDWARD HALL,
et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiff James Alexander Logan, an inmate of the Florida
penal system who is proceeding in forma pauperis, initiated this
action by filing a Civil Rights Complaint (Complaint) (Doc. #1) on
March 20, 2014. In the Complaint, Logan names the following
individuals as defendants: Sergeant Edward Hall, Officer Larry
Green, Officer Bradley McKinney, Nurse Katherine Burgin, Officer
Joshua Hodges and Sergeant R. Knight. Logan asserts that Defendants
Green and Hall sexually harassed and verbally abused him on
February 5, 2014, and when Logan filed a grievance, the Defendants
retaliated against him by filing false disciplinary reports.
relief,

Logan

seeks

compensatory

and/or

punitive

damages

As
for

excessive time in administrative and close management confinement
as a result of Defendants' alleged retaliation. He also requests
that the Court direct the Florida Department of Corrections to send
the Inspector General to Florida State Prison (FSP) to meet with
him about the alleged retaliation at FSP.

Additionally, he

requests "federal and state indictments against each defendant(s)."
Complaint at 7(c), paragraph 10.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the Court to dismiss
this case at any time if the Court determines that the action is
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

immune from such relief.

Additionally, the Court must read Plaintiff's pro se allegations in
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).

a liberal fashion.

A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in
law or fact."

Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir.)

(citing Battle v. Central State Hospital, 898 F.2d 126, 129 (11th
Cir. 1990)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1044 (2001). A complaint filed
in forma pauperis which fails to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6) is not automatically frivolous.
U.S. 319, 328 (1989).
only

be

ordered

meritless,"

id.

Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) dismissals should

when
at

Neitzke v. Williams, 490

the

327,

or

legal
when

theories
the

are

claims

"indisputably

rely

on

factual

allegations which are "clearly baseless." Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 32 (1992).
fantastic

or

"Frivolous claims include claims 'describing

delusional

scenarios,

claims

district judges are all too familiar.'"
(quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328).

2

with

which

federal

Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1349

Additionally, a claim may be

dismissed as frivolous when it appears that a plaintiff has little
or no chance of success.

Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d at 1349.

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege that (1) the defendant deprived him of a right secured under
the

United

States

Constitution

or

federal

deprivation occurred under color of state law.

law

and

(2)

such

Bingham v. Thomas,

654 F.3d 1171, 1175 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (citation
omitted); Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 737 (11th Cir. 2010)
(per curiam) (citations omitted).

Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit

"'requires proof of an affirmative causal connection between the
official's

acts

or

omissions

and

the

alleged

constitutional

deprivation' in § 1983 cases." Rodriguez v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.,
508 F.3d 611, 625 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Zatler v. Wainwright,
802 F.2d 397, 401 (11th Cir. 1986)).

More than conclusory and

vague allegations are required to state a cause of action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983.

See L.S.T., Inc., v. Crow, 49 F.3d 679, 684 (11th

Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 556-57
(11th Cir. 1984). In the absence of a federal constitutional
deprivation or violation of a federal right, Plaintiff cannot
sustain a cause of action against the Defendants under 42 U.S.C. §
1983.
With respect to the alleged verbal abuse by Defendants Hall
and Green, such allegations do not state a claim of federal
constitutional dimension.

See Hernandez v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.,

3

281 F. App'x 862, 866 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (citing Edwards
v. Gilbert, 867 F.2d 1271, 1274 n.1 (11th Cir. 1989)) ("Hernandez's
allegations of verbal abuse and threats by the prison officers did
not state a claim because the defendants never carried out these
threats[,] and verbal abuse alone is insufficient to state a
constitutional claim."), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 1402 (2009).
"[M]ere threatening language and gestures of a
custodial office[r] do not, even if true,
amount to constitutional violations." Coyle
v. Hughes, 436 F.Supp. 591, 593 (W.D. Okl[a].
1977). "Were a prisoner . . . entitled to a
jury trial each time that he was threatened
with violence by a prison guard, even though
no injury resulted, the federal courts would
be more burdened than ever with trials of
prisoner suits . . . ." Bolden v. Mandel, 385
F.Supp. 761, 764 (D. Md. 1974). See Johnson
v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 n.7 (2d Cir.
1973) (the use of words, no matter how
violent, does not comprise a section 1983
violation).
McFadden v. Lucas, 713 F.2d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 1983).
To the extent that Logan is requesting that this Court
criminally charge the Defendants for subjecting him to cruel and
unusual punishment, this Court has no authority to file criminal
charges or to direct that charges be filed against the officers.
The proper avenue to seek such relief is for Plaintiff to contact
the State Attorney's Office, Eighth Judicial Circuit, in and for
Bradford County, Florida, if appropriate. Additionally, to the
extent that Logan requests that this Court reprimand the officers
and/or terminate their employment, this Court does not have the

4

authority to reprimand a department employee and/or terminate the
officers' employment with the Florida Department of Corrections.
Plaintiff may also seek relief by initiating a grievance pursuant
to the prison's administrative grievance procedures.
To the extent that Logan is requesting that the Court direct
the Inspector General to interview him, this Court has no authority
to direct the Inspector General to investigate.

The proper avenue

to seek such relief is for Logan to initiate a grievance pursuant
to the prison's administrative grievance procedures. However, in an
abundance of caution, the Court will refer this matter to the
Inspector General for the Florida Department of Corrections for
whatever action might be deemed appropriate in light of Logan's
allegations.
Additionally, to the extent Logan requests compensatory and
punitive damages for Defendants' alleged denial of his federal
constitutional rights, his claims for mental or emotional injuries
are

barred

by

42

U.S.C.

§

1997e(e)

as

long

as

he

remains

incarcerated. Section 1997e(e) "applies only to lawsuits involving
(1) Federal civil actions (2) brought by a prisoner (3) for mental
or emotional injury (4) suffered while in custody."

Napier v.

Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 532 (11th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 540
U.S. 1112 (2004). Thus, pursuant to § 1997e(e), a prisoner bringing
a § 1983 action must demonstrate a physical injury that is more
than de minimus in order to recover compensatory or punitive

5

damages for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody.
Al-Amin v. Smith, 637 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2011); Hale v. Sec'y,
Dept. of Corr., 345 F. App'x 489, 491 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam)
(citation omitted). Nevertheless, an action barred by § 1997e(e) is
barred only during Plaintiff's imprisonment. Here, Logan does not
allege any physical injury as a result of Defendants' actions. He
simply states that Defendants filed false disciplinary reports as
a

retaliatory

measure

because

he

complained

about

prison

conditions.
For the foregoing reasons, this case will be dismissed without
prejudice to Logan's right to pursue those other avenues of relief
and then refile his claims under 42 U.S.C. § l983 in accordance
with the Court's instructions, if he elects to do so. The Clerk of
Court will be directed to provide a civil rights complaint form and
Affidavit of Indigency form to Logan.

If Logan chooses to refile

a civil rights complaint in this Court to address any alleged
federal constitutional violations, he must submit a fully completed
civil rights complaint form with an original signature and must
submit a copy of the form for each Defendant for service of
process. Moreover, Logan must either pay the $400.00 filing fee or
file a fully completed Affidavit of Indigency form.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

6

2.

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment dismissing

this case without prejudice.
3.

The Clerk of Court shall send a copy of the Complaint

(Doc. #1) and this Order via facsimile to the Inspector General for
the Florida Department of Corrections for whatever action might be
deemed appropriate in light of Logan's allegations.
4.

The Clerk of Court shall send a civil rights complaint

form and an Affidavit of Indigency form to Plaintiff. If Plaintiff
elects to initiate a civil rights action, Plaintiff shall either
file a fully completed Affidavit of Indigency (if Plaintiff desires
to proceed as a pauper) or pay the $400.00 filing fee (if Plaintiff
does not desire to proceed as a pauper). Plaintiff should not place
this case number on the forms.

The Clerk will assign a separate

case number if Plaintiff elects to refile his claims.
5.

The

Clerk

of

the

Court

shall

close

this

case

and

terminate any pending motions.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 10th day of
April, 2014.

sc 3/21
c:
James Alexander Logan

7