Simpson v. Guess et al

Filing 57

ORDER granting 32 Defendants Guess and Minshew's Motion to Dismiss; granting 40 Defendants Bennett, Johnson, Roach, and Wynne's Motion to Dismiss; dismissing Plaintiff's claims for compensatory damages from Defendants in their official capacities; directing Defendants to answer 10 the Amended Complaint within twenty days. Signed by Judge Brian J. Davis on 7/25/2019. (KLC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
GREGORY L. SIMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:18-cv-547-J-39PDB

J.L. GUESS et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________
ORDER
Plaintiff Gregory L. Simpson, an inmate of the Florida penal
system, is proceeding in this action on an Amended Complaint (Doc.
10;

Complaint)

Defendants

six

under

42

U.S.C.

corrections

§

officers

1983.
at

Plaintiff

Columbia

names

as

Correctional

Institution (CCI), whom he sues in their individual and official
capacities. Complaint at 2-3. Plaintiff alleges Defendants used
excessive force against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment
on April 21, 2016. Id. at 6. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages
for his physical and emotional injuries. Id.
Before the Court are Defendants Guess and Minshew’s Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 32; Guess Motion) and Defendants Bennett, Johnson,
Roach, and Wynne’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 40; Bennett Motion).
Plaintiff has responded to the motions (Doc. 36; Response to Guess
Motion) (Doc. 56; Response to Bennett Motion). As such, they are
ripe for this Court’s review.

In their motions, Defendants seek dismissal of the officialcapacity

claims

against

them

for

damages,

invoking

Eleventh

Amendment immunity. See Guess Motion at 3; Bennett Motion at 3.
Defendants seek no other relief.
In response, Plaintiff fails to address Eleventh Amendment
immunity. Rather, Plaintiff responds to the motions as if they
were motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff asserts the exhibits
he provides (Docs. 37-1 through 37-6) demonstrate a genuine issue
of material fact exists as to his excessive force claims against
Defendants. See Response to Guess Motion at 2; Response to Bennett
Motion at 1.
Plaintiff’s assertions and evidentiary support are misplaced
at

this

time.

Defendants

move,

under

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure 12, to dismiss Plaintiff’s official-capacity claims for
damages; they do not move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment
claims, nor do they move for summary judgment under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 56. In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court
limits it review to the allegations in a complaint, accepting those
allegations as true. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009).
When a plaintiff sues a state actor in his official capacity,
“the action is in essence one for the recovery of money from the
state.” Zatler v. Wainwright, 802 F.2d 397, 400 (11th Cir. 1986).
As such, “the state is the real, substantial party in interest and
2

is entitled to invoke its sovereign immunity from suit even though
individual officials are nominal defendants.” Id. (finding the
Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections was immune from
suit in his official capacity). To the extent Plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages from Defendants

Guess, Minshew, Bennett,

Johnson, Roach, and Wynne in their official capacities, they are
entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1.

Defendants Guess and Minshew’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc.

32) is GRANTED.
2.

Defendants Bennett, Johnson, Roach, and Wynne’s Motion

to Dismiss (Doc. 40) is GRANTED.
3.

Plaintiff’s

claims

for

compensatory

damages

from

Defendants in their official capacities are dismissed.
4.

Defendants shall answer the Amended Complaint (Doc. 10)

within twenty days of the date of this Order.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 24th day of
July, 2019.

Jax-6 7/24
c:
Gregory L. Simpson
Counsel of Record
3