Helton v. Burks et al

Filing 71

ORDER denying 33 Motion For Injunctive Relief ; adopting Report and Recommendations re 53 Report and Recommendations.; adopting Report and Recommendations re 19 Report and Recommendations.; denying 26 Motion for Preliminary Injunction.Ordered by Judge W. Louis Sands on 3/26/12 (wks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ALBANY DIVISION
RANDY GERALD HELTON,

:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
:
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF
:
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
:
:
Respondent.
:
____________________________________:

Case Nos. 1:11-CV-0077 (WLS)
5:11-CV-0255 (MTT)

ORDER
Before the Court are two Reports and Recommendations (Docs. 19 and 53) from United
Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff. The first, filed on August 3, 2011, is a frivolity review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The second, filed on October 31, 2011, addresses several of
Petitioner’s pending Motions. (See generally Docket). The Court’s Order is an Omnibus Order
that will address a number of Petitioner’s pending motions; however, this Order does not
address, Respondent’s October 26, 2011 Motion to Dismiss or any of Petitioner’s Motions filed
after November 7, 2011.
I.

Background

Petitioner, Randy Gerard Helton, filed this action on June 8, 2011.1 (Doc. 1). Petitioner
is currently incarcerated in Coffee County Correctional Facility. Petitioner is serving time on his
February 4, 2005, fifteen-year sentence for burglary from Barrow County. Throughout the
pendency of this litigation, Petitioner has filed numerous motions, including two Motions for
Injunctive Relief. (See Docket). As best the Court can tell, Petitioner makes claims relating to
1

The Court notes that the related case, Helton v. Christian, 5:11-CV-0255-MTT, was consolidated into this action
by United States District Court Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on July 26, 2011. (Doc. 15).

1

(1) denial of medical care, (2) retaliation, (3) conspiracy, (4) excessive force and sexual assault,
and (5) injunctive relief. (Docs. 1, 7, 14, and 17). In sum, Petitioner alleges that the prison staff
denied him essential medical care and treatment, retaliated against him for filing grievances
related thereto, used excessive force against him, sexually assaulted him, and created an
environment of hostility and intimidation as a result of Petitioner’s complaints regarding his
treatment by the staff. (Id.) The Court now considers the Report and Recommendations related
to Petitioner’s Motions below.
A. August 3, 2011 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19)
In his August 3, 2011, Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19), United States Magistrate
Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff recommends that Respondents “Georgia Department of
Corrections,” and “Medical” at Dooly State Prison and Calhoun State Prison be dismissed
because they are not entities subject to suit. (Doc. 19). Judge Langstaff, having conducted a
review of Petitioner’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 also finds that only two of
Petitioner’s claims should survive his initial review. (Id.) Petitioner’s claims for retaliation and
conspiracy against Respondents Sergeant Burks and Remika Christian were sufficiently plead for
the purposes of Judge Langstaff’s review. (Id.) Petitioner’s remaining claims for constitutional
violations arising from denial of medical care, excessive force and sexual assault, and injunctive
relief were found to be without merit by Judge Langstaff. (Id.)
In sum, Judge Langstaff recommends that (1) Respondents “Medical” at Dooly State and
Calhoun State Prisons, and Respondent Georgia Department of Corrections be dismissed as
improper parties, (2) Petitioner’s retaliation and conspiracy claims against Respondents Christian
and Burks proceed, and (3) Petitioner’s claims for denial of medical care, excessive force and
sexual assault, and injunctive relief be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable Constitutional

2

claim. (Doc. 19). Regarding Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief, Judge Langstaff notes that
because Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at Dooly State Prison, Plaintiff’s claim is mooted by
his transfer. (Id. at 13). Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc.
12) should be DENIED, Plaintiff’s Motions for Discovery and Appointment of Counsel should
be DENIED (Docs. 12 and 16), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Trial (Doc. 17) should be DENIED.
Judge Langstaff provided Petitioner fourteen (14) days to file an Objection to the Report
and Recommendation. Petitioner filed several Motions within the response period;2 however, the
Court notes, having reviewed Petitioner’s Motions, that Petitioner does not object to Judge
Langstaff’s findings in his Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19). Even if Plaintiff’s Motions
objecting to consolidation of his cases and seeking preliminary injunction could be construed as
objections to Judge Langstaff’s Report and Recommendation- and they cannot- they do not
substantively challenge Judge Langstaff’s findings. (Docs. 23 and 26).
Nothing raised in any of Petitioner’s filings (Docs. 23 and 26) has shown that Petitioner’s
claims for denial of medical care, excessive force and sexual assault, and injunctive relief were
erroneously recommended for dismissal based on Judge Langstaff’s frivolity review. Therefore,
the Court, in an abundance of caution, finds that Plaintiff’s Motions (Doc. 23 and 26), to the
extent they relate to the matters in Judge Langstaff’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19), fail
to rebut the legally sound recommendations of Judge Langstaff.3 Therefore, any material that
may be construed as objection set forth in Petitioner’s Motions (Docs. 23 and 26) are
OVERRULED and United States Magistrate Judge Langstaff’s Report and Recommendation

See Doc. 23 Response and Objection to the Court’s Order (Doc. 15) Consolidating Petitioner’s cases; Doc. 26
Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
3
The Court notes that Petitioner’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 26) is a recitation of the request found in the
Complaint (Doc. 1) and the Supplements to the Complaint (Docs. 7 and 14). Petitioner requests, among other
things, that Sergeant Burks compensate Petitioner for her alleged violations of his rights and that “Medical” provide
Petitioner with various documents (“copies of sick call”) and obtain specific medical care for Petitioner.
2

3

(Doc. 19) is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and made the Order of this Court for reason of the
findings made and reasons stated therein together with the reasons stated and conclusions
reached herein. Accordingly, Petitioner’s claims of constitutional violations arising from a
denial of medical care, use of excessive force and sexual assault, and seeking injunctive relief are
DISMISSED. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motions challenging the consolidation of his cases
(Doc. 23 “Response and Objection to Court Order at Doc. 15”), and seeking a Preliminary
Injunction (Doc. 26) related to his claim for excessive force, as discussed above, are DENIED.
B. October 31, 2011 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 53)
In light of the Court’s findings herein, the Court notes that Petitioner’s only remaining
claims are against Sergeant Burks and Remika Christian for retaliation and conspiracy as alleged
by Petitioner. In his October 31, 2011, Report and Recommendation (Doc. 53), United States
Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff recommends, among other things, that Petitioner’s
Motions to Appoint Counsel (Docs. 25, 28, 39, 47, and 50) be denied because Petitioner has no
right to counsel in § 1983 actions. (Doc. 53 at 1). Judge Langstaff also recommends that
Petitioner’s Motion for Production (Doc. 41) be Denied, Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery
be Granted-in-part, Petitioner’s Motions for Injunctive Relief (Docs. 26 and 33) be Denied,
Petitioner’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 42) be Granted, and that Petitioner’s Amended Complaint
be Dismissed-without prejudice.
As Judge Langstaff discussed, prisoners pursuing § 1983 have no right to counsel. Bass
v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 1999). In deciding whether legal counsel should be provided,
the Court typically considers, among other factors, the merits of the Plaintiff's claim and the
complexity of the issues presented. See Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989). As
Judge Langstaff found, in the present case, the essential facts and legal doctrines in this case are

4

ascertainable by the Petitioner without the assistance of Court-appointed legal counsel and that
the existence of exceptional circumstances has not been shown by Petitioner. (Doc. 53). The
Court agrees with Judge Langstaff. Thus, the Court, when necessary, will consider assisting
Petitioner in securing legal counsel if and when it becomes apparent that legal assistance is
required in order to avoid prejudice to his rights.
The Court also agrees with Judge Langstaff regarding the discovery related Motions filed
by Petitioner and Respondent. (Doc. 53). Judge Langstaff recommends that Petitioner’s Motion
for Production (Doc. 41) be Denied. The Court notes that the claims related to Petitioner’s
Motion relate solely to Plaintiff’s excessive force and sexual assault claims, which the Court
previously found to be without merit. Judge Langstaff also recommends that Respondents’
Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 49) be Granted-in-part. Consistent with the findings of Judge
Langstaff, the Court finds that a partial discovery stay is necessary and adopts his
recommendation as set forth in the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 53).
The Court, having addressed Petitioner’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 26) above,
now considers Petitioner’s (Second) Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 33). Judge Langstaff
recommends that Petitioner’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 33) be Denied based on
Petitioner’s failure to show that he meets the legal standards required to obtain injunctive relief.
Petitioner’s Motion (Doc. 33) requests injunctive relief in the form of requiring “Medical” and
“Doctor Ayers” to provide specific medical treatment, including an X-ray, to Petitioner for pain
in his right shoulder. (Doc. 33 at 1). Unlike Petitioner’s previous Motion, the instant Motion is
not mooted by a transfer, as Petitioner is seeking relief against those who work where he is
currently incarcerated.

5

The Court notes, as discussed by Judge Langstaff, injunctive relief is an extraordinary,
almost Draconian-like remedy, which the Court does not find appropriate in this case. Simply
put, Petitioner has not demonstrated that the facts and circumstances as set forth in his Motion
warrant this extraordinary remedy. For these reasons, the Court agrees with Judge Langstaff,
Petitioner’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (33) should be and is Denied.
Finally, the Court, having considered the arguments within Petitioner’s Motion to Amend
(Doc. 42) agrees with Judge Langstaff and finds that Petitioner’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 42)
should be Granted. However, the claims found in Petitioner’s Amended Complaint do not set
forth a claim for relief- as Judge Langstaff found in his initial frivolity review. The Court finds,
consistent with Judge Langstaff’s findings, that Petitioner has failed to plead sufficient claims of
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for denial
of mental health and medical treatment. Thus, Petitioner’s Amended Complaint, as construed
and encompassed by the new allegations found in his Motion to Amend (Doc. 42) should be, and
is Dismissed.
Judge Langstaff provided the parties fourteen (14) days to object to the findings as stated
in his Report and Recommendation (Doc. 53).

During that time, Petitioner filed several

Responses, the majority addressing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 48). The Court, in an
abundance of caution, will construe Petitioner’s Responses (Docs. 55, 56, 57, and 58) filed
within the appropriate time period, as Objections to the extent they address the matters found in
Judge Langstaff’s October 31, 2011 Report and Recommendation.
As best the Court can tell, Petitioner objects to any finding that relates to the
insufficiency of his claims. (Docs. 55, 56, 57 and 58).

Petitioner states that the alleged

constitutional violations are continuing and states that his claims should not be dismissed- for

6

any reason- due to the nature of these alleged violations. (Id.) The Court has carefully reviewed
Petitioner’s Responses (Docs. 55, 56, 57 and 58). The Court notes that, even though the
Responses are not formal objections, the Court has considered the Responses as such in an
abundance of caution and to ensure that all of Petitioner’s possible arguments and objections are
considered by the Court.

Again, as the Court previously found, Petitioner’s Motions and

Responses fail to substantively challenge Judge Langstaff’s findings. (Id.)
Nothing raised in any of Petitioner’s filings (Docs. 55, 56, 57 and 58) overcome Judge
Langstaff’s findings, including those related to the denial of counsel, and the dismissal of the
Amended Complaint’s claims relating to allegations against new Respondents for denial of
medical care, excessive force and sexual assault. Therefore, to the extent Petitioner’s objections
even relate to the matters in Judge Langstaff’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 53), these
arguments and objections fail to rebut the legally sound recommendations of Judge Langstaff.
Therefore, any material that may be construed as objection set forth in Petitioner’s
Motions (Docs. 55, 56, 57 and 58) are OVERRULED and United States Magistrate Judge
Langstaff’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. 53) is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and made the
Order of this Court for reason of the findings made and reasons stated therein together with the
reasons stated and conclusions reached herein. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motions to Appoint
Counsel (25, 28, 39, 47, and 50) are DENIED. Petitioner’s Motion for Production (Doc. 41) is
also DENIED. Respondents’ Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 49) is GRANTED-in-part and
DENIED-in-part. Petitioner’s (Second Motion) for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 33) is DENIED.
Petitioner’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 42) is GRANTED; however, in light of Petitioner’s failure
to set forth cognizable claims as found in the Motion to Amend (Doc. 42), these additional
claims are DISMISSED-without-prejudice.

7

II.

Conclusion

For the reasons state herein, United States Magistrate Judge Langstaff’s Report and
Recommendations (Doc. 19 and 53) are ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and made the Order of this
Court for reason of the findings made and reasons stated therein together with the reasons stated
and conclusions reached herein.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s claims constitutional violations

arising from a denial of medical care, use of excessive force and sexual assault, and seeking
injunctive relief are DISMISSED.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motions challenging the

consolidation of his cases (Doc. 23 “Response and Objection to Court Order at Doc. 15”), and
seeking a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 26) related to his claim for excessive force, as discussed
above, are DENIED. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motions to Appoint Counsel (25, 28, 39, 47, and
50) are DENIED-without-prejudice. Petitioner’s Motion for Production (Doc. 41) is also
DENIED.

Respondents’ Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 49) is GRANTED-in-part and

DENIED-in-part. Petitioner’s (Second Motion) for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 33) is DENIED.
Petitioner’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 42) is GRANTED; however, in light of Petitioner’s failure
to set forth cognizable claims as found in the Motion to Amend (Doc. 42), these additional
claims are DISMISSED-without-prejudice.
SO ORDERED, this 26th day of March, 2012.

/s/ W. Louis Sands
THE HONORABLE W. LOUIS SANDS,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT_

8