CLAUDIO v. KELLY

Filing 109

ORDER ADOPTING 102 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - Defendants' 33 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART, and DENIED IN PART: Plaintiff's claims of conspiracy against all Defendants are DISMISSED. Plaintiff's claims o f violations of due process against all Defendants are DISMISSED. Plaintiff's claims of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs are DISMISSED, except for those claims against Defendants, GARNER, BARFIELD, and CLOUD. Plaintiff's official and individual capacity claims against Defendant CREWS are DISMISSED. Plaintiff should be directed to file an amended complaint with only those claims that have not been dismissed. Case is REMANDED back to the Magistrate Judge for the consideration of Plaintiff's amended complaint. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE MAURICE M PAUL on 1/12/2015. (jws)

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
RAYMOND CLAUDIO,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 5:13-cv-00354-MP-GRJ

BARFIELD, BROWN, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation dated October 20, 2014. (Doc. 102). The parties have been furnished a copy
of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections
pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). After being granted an extension of
time, Doc. 104, plaintiff has filed objections at Doc. 105. I have made a de novo review based
on those objections. Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed
objections, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.
As recommended, the motion to dismiss, Doc. 33, should be granted in part and denied in part,
and the plaintiff shall file an amended complaint containing only the remaining claims.
We begin with plaintiff's claims of a conspiracy among various defendants. The Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge that plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts -- specifically any
allegations of an understanding among the defendants -- to support a claim for conspiracy. Also,
even if he had, his claim would be barred by in the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine. Thus, the
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that plaintiff’s claims of a conspiracy are due to be
dismissed.
Also, plaintiff admits that after a successful appeal of his disciplinary conviction,

Page 2 of 3

Defendant Crews restored all of his lost gain time due to the disciplinary conviction.
Accordingly, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that plaintiff cannot state a cognizable
claim for the deprivation of due process with respect to the overturned disciplinary report,
because it does not implicate a protected liberty interest. Also, there is no protected interest in
the inmate grievance procedures. Thus, the Court also agrees that any due process claims based
on those procedures fail.
With regard to the deliberate indifference claims, the Court agrees with the following
recommendations: The only deliberate indifference claims that should be permitted to proceed
are these: (1) that Defendant Garner was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by ignoring
the restrictions on his medical pass; (2) that Defendants Barfield and Cloud were deliberately
indifferent to his medical needs while they were on the Inmate Classification Team and
reassigned Plaintiff to the disciplinary squad, despite being aware of Plaintiff’s medical issues;
and (3) that Defendant Garner was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs
after Defendant Garner left Plaintiff on the ground trembling after he collapsed for a second time
while on the disciplinary squad.
However, the Court agrees that all other deliberate indifference claims, including the
claims against Defendants Cain, Streetman, and Dudley, should be dismissed. First, plaintiff
alleges no direct involvement by Cain, and, as noted above, respondeat superior does not apply
to § 1983 actions. Second, the record is clear that defendants Streetman and Dudley provided
medical care to plaintiff and that plaintiff's claims are simply that he disagrees with the treatment
given. Such claims do not suffice to allege deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
The Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge that plaintiff's claims against the
Secretary of the Department of Corrections, Crews, are due to be dismissed because (1) mere

Case No: 5:13-cv-00354-MP-GRJ

Page 3 of 3

negligence is not enough to justify a § 1983 claim, (2) plaintiff fails to allege Crews' personal
participation and respondeat superior does not apply to §1983 claims, and (3) Crews is immune
from suits for monetary damages in his official capacity.
Finally, the Court agrees that plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Garner for pepper
spraying him, and against Defendant Jones for standing by and congratulating Defendant Garner
on the pepper spraying, in violation of the Eighth Amendment -- which are not challenged in the
motion to dismiss -- should also be permitted to proceed. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated
by reference in this order.

2.

The motion to dismiss, Doc. 33, is GRANTED IN PART, and DENIED IN PART
as follows:
a.

Plaintiff’s claims of conspiracy against all Defendants are DISMISSED.

b.

Plaintiff’s claims of violations of due process against all Defendants are
DISMISSED.

c.

Plaintiff’s claims of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs
are DISMISSED, except for those claims against Defendants Garner,
Barfield, and Cloud.

d.

Plaintiff’s official and individual capacity claims against Defendant Crews
are DISMISSED.

3.

Plaintiff should be directed to file an amended complaint with only those claims
that have not been dismissed.

4.

The case is remanded back to the Magistrate Judge for the consideration of
Plaintiff’s amended complaint.

DONE AND ORDERED this

12th day of January, 2015

s/Maurice M. Paul
Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 5:13-cv-00354-MP-GRJ