THOMPSON v. FLOWERS

Filing 28

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS - The report and recommendation ECF No. 23 , is accepted in part. The motion to dismiss, ECF No. 15 is granted in part. Mr. Thompson's claims for actual and punitive damages are dismissed. Mr. Tho mpson's claims for nominal damages and injunctive relief remain pending. I do not direct the entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The case is remanded to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/14/2015. (sac)

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MATTHEW JOHN THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 4:13cv501-RH/CAS

L. FLOWERS,
Defendant.
_____________________________/

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

This is a prisoner civil-rights case. The plaintiff Matthew John Thompson,
an inmate at Liberty Correctional Institution, alleges that the defendant L. Flowers,
the facility’s mailroom supervisor, willfully opened Mr. Thompson’s legal mail on
at least two occasions. Mr. Thompson alleges that Ms. Flowers threatened to
retaliate against him for filing grievances.
Ms. Flowers has moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies and failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
The motion is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, ECF No. 23, and the objections, ECF Nos. 24 and 25. I have
reviewed de novo the issues raised by the objections.
Case No. 4:13cv501-RH/CAS

Page 2 of 3

In this circuit, failure to exhaust is treated as a matter in abatement, properly
raised by a motion to dismiss. See Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368, 1375-76 (11th
Cir. 2008). A district court may properly consider evidence on such a motion to
dismiss. The burden of proof is on the defendant. See Turner v. Burnside, 541
F.3d 1077, 1082-83 (11th Cir. 2008).
Here the evidence establishes that Mr. Thompson properly exhausted the
mail-opening claim. Indeed, Ms. Flowers acknowledges this.
The evidence also establishes that Mr. Thompson properly exhausted his
retaliation claim. He did this by submitting a grievance of reprisal directly to the
office of the Secretary of the Department of Corrections. The governing rules
allow a grievance of reprisal and allow it to be submitted directly to the Secretary.
The rules define this as a “grievance submitted by an inmate alleging that staff
have taken or are threatening to take retaliatory action against the inmate for good
faith participation in the inmate grievance procedure.” Fla. Admin. Code r. 33103.002(9) (2012). This is precisely what Mr. Thompson alleged in his grievance
of reprisal. The assertion that Mr. Thompson did not state clearly enough why he
was submitting the grievance directly to the Secretary, thus bypassing the
institutional staff, demands too much precision or detail. A reasonable inference
from Mr. Thompson’s grievance is that he had been threatened with
unconstitutional mistreatment by the institutional staff and wished to avoid the

Case No. 4:13cv501-RH/CAS

Page 3 of 3

mistreatment—the very reason the rules allow a prisoner to file a grievance of
reprisal directly with the Secretary.
On the merits, the report and recommendation has it just right. Opening an
inmate’s legal mail outside his presence and without a reason may be
unconstitutional even aside from any demonstrable effect on a current legal
proceeding. Mr. Thompson has not alleged facts that would entitle him to recover
actual or punitive damages on this claim, but he may be able to recover nominal
damages and injunctive relief against Ms. Flowers. The Eleventh Amendment
does not bar such relief.
For these reasons,
IT IS ORDERED:
The report and recommendation is accepted in part. The motion to dismiss,
ECF No. 15, is granted in part. Mr. Thompson’s claims for actual and punitive
damages are dismissed. Mr. Thompson’s claims for nominal damages and
injunctive relief remain pending. I do not direct the entry of judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The case is remanded to the magistrate
judge for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED on March 14, 2015.
s/Robert L. Hinkle
United States District Judge

Case No. 4:13cv501-RH/CAS