MOODY v. SHOULTS et al
ORDER: For the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's 33 Report and Recommendation, 19 Shoultes's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Plaint iff's claims against Shoultes for deliberate indifference to medical needs and injunctive relief and his claims against Shoultes in her official capacity are accordingly DISMISSED without prejudice. To the extent that the Plaintiff moves for injunctive relief, his motion is DENIED. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 3/9/2017. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAMANTHA SHOULTES, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-325(MTT)
The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the Plaintiff’s complaint failed to
state a claim for which relief can be granted against Defendant Shoultes for deliberate
indifference to medical needs, official capacity claims, and injunctive relief. Doc. 33.
Although the Court agreed with these conclusions, the Court provided the Plaintiff an
opportunity to amend his complaint to correct any pleading deficiencies. Doc. 47.
The Plaintiff responded to the Court’s order to amend, but he did not amend his
complaint. Doc. 49. Instead, the Plaintiff reported that he “would like to do so” but is
prevented by the bad lighting in his prison cell and the prison having lost his “legal work
books etc that I’ve done on this case.” Id. at 1. But the Plaintiff was able to file that
response despite the issues he alleges, and nothing in his filing excuses his failure to
address the deficiencies in his complaint.
The Plaintiff asks the Court to order the prison to provide him with two hours in
the prison’s “main law library” per week until the case is finished. Id. He also claims
that his property was “removed but was never returned to me.” Id. at 2. The Plaintiff
attached to his filing: (1) a letter from an attorney dated October 21, 2016, apparently
pertaining to a separate civil lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff; (2) a grievance form, dated
January 22, 2017, with “Out of Time” and “Grievance is Out of Time” written over it,
alleging that on November 15, 2016, corrections officers confiscated the Plaintiff’s
property “without inventorying anything they removed and never issuing a receipt for my
property;” and (3) an inventory form for “confiscated or stored” inmate personal
property, dated November 22, 2016. Doc. 49-1.
The Court must construe the Plaintiff’s filings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed.” (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Mays v. United States, 817 F.3d 728,
731 n.2 (11th Cir. 2016) (“Given Mays’s motion to vacate and supplemental notice were
filed pro se, we construe them liberally.” (citation omitted)). But to the extent the Plaintiff
requests preliminary injunctive relief, the Plaintiff’s request must be denied, even
liberally construing his filing. First, the Plaintiff has failed to show a harm which requires
relief, as preliminary injunctions are only available upon a demonstration of “(1) a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable
injury; (3) that the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs the potential harm to the
defendant; and (4) that the injunction will not disserve the public interest.” Palmer v.
Braun, 287 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Second, preliminary
injunctions relating to prison conditions “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than
necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least
intrusive means necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); see Thomas
v. Bryant, 614 F.3d 1288, 1320 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding that this “need-narrowness-
intrusiveness limitation governs the initial entry of an injunctive relief in prison litigation
cases”). The Court must also “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public
safety or the operation of a criminal justice system . . . and shall respect . . . principles of
comity.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). The Plaintiff’s sparse filing does not meet these
requirements. He has not shown that he is entitled to injunctive relief, and he has not
shown that his requested relief is appropriately drawn and outweighs other
For the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 33), Shoultes’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Doc. 19) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Plaintiff’s claims against Shoultes for
deliberate indifference to medical needs and injunctive relief and his claims against
Shoultes in her official capacity are accordingly DISMISSED without prejudice.1 To
the extent that the Plaintiff moves for injunctive relief, his motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 9th day of March, 2017.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
The applicable two-year statute of limitations appears to bar the Plaintiff from refiling his federal claims.
Therefore, the dismissal is, in effect, likely with prejudice as to those claims. Justice v. United States, 6
F.3d 1474, 1482 n.15 (11th Cir. 1993); Burden v. Yates, 644 F.2d 503, 505 (5th Cir. 1981). That is the
reason the Court alerted the Plaintiff to his complaint’s deficiencies and afforded him the opportunity to
amend. Doc. 47. Since the Plaintiff has not addressed his complaint’s deficiencies as to the charges
discussed above, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. See Friedlander v. Nims, 755 F.2d 810, 813-14
(11th Cir. 1985) (holding that dismissal with prejudice was not an abuse of discretion when the court gave
the pro se plaintiff a chance to amend).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?