MOODY v EUTSEY et al

Filing 28

ORDER ACCEPTING in part and REJECTING in part 8 Report and Recommendations. The Court construes Moody's objection as a motion to amend the complaint and this motion is GRANTED. The conditions-of-confinem ent claim against Chatman may proceed along with the claims against Whiters, Eutsey, Miller, and Piercy. The retaliation claim is DISMISSED. It is ORDERED that service be made on Warden Bruce Chatman and that he file an answer or such other respons e as may be appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The Defendants are also reminded of the duty to avoid unnecessary service expenses and of the possible imposition of expenses for failure to waive service. The Plaintiff is reminded of his duty to keep the clerk of court and all opposing attorneys advised of his current address, duty to prosecute this action, and the provisions regarding discovery in the Magistrate Judge's order. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 4/11/2016. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
JEREMY MOODY,
Plaintiff,
v.
Deputy Warden KEITH EUTSEY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-348 (MTT)

ORDER
Before the Court is the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Stephen Hyles.
(Doc. 8). The Magistrate Judge conducted the preliminary screening required by
28 U.S.C. § 1915A and recommends permitting Plaintiff Jeremy Moody’s conditions-ofconfinement claims against Defendants Whiters, Eutsey, Miller, and Piercy to proceed
and dismissing Moody’s retaliation claim and his conditions-of-confinement claim
against Defendant Chatman. (Doc. 8). Moody has objected. (Doc. 18). Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed Moody’s objection and has made a de novo
determination of the portions of the Recommendation to which Moody objects.
I. DISCUSSION
In his objection, Moody has asserted additional facts and attached exhibits to
address the deficiencies in his complaint described in the Recommendation. Therefore,
the Court will construe the objection as a motion to amend the complaint. See
Newsome v. Chatham Cty. Det. Ctr., 256 F. App’x 342, 344 (11th Cir. 2007) (“Although
the form of those additional allegations were objections to the recommendation of

dismissal, the collective substance of them was an attempt to amend the complaint.
Because courts must construe pro se pleadings liberally, the district court should …
consider[ the plaintiff’s] additional allegations in the objection as a motion to amend his
complaint and grant[] it.”). Accordingly, this motion is GRANTED.
A.

Eighth Amendment Claims

“[T]o demonstrate an official’s deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must prove that
the official possessed knowledge both of the infirm condition and of the means to cure
that condition, so that a conscious, culpable refusal to prevent the harm can be inferred
from the defendant’s failure to prevent it.” LaMarca v. Turner, 995 F.2d 1526, 1536
(11th Cir. 1993). The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Moody’s conditions-ofconfinement claim against Chatman because Moody has not alleged Chatman knew of
an excessive risk to Moody’s health or safety and chose to disregard it, nor has he
alleged enough facts to state a claim against Chatman as a supervisor. (Doc. 8 at 5).
In his objection, Moody alleges that Chatman knew about the conditions of his
confinement because he reviewed and signed grievances about these conditions and
because he had been notified by two attorneys that there were concerns about Moody’s
cell. (Doc. 18). Moody attached as exhibits letters from the attorneys and a response
to a grievance signed by Chatman about the temperature and ventilation in Moody’s
cell. (Doc. 18-1 at 2-4).
The letters to Chatman, from two attorneys representing Moody in other
matters, express concern about the conditions of Moody’s confinement. (Doc. 18-1 at
2-3). The letter from William A. Morrison says other inmates have described Moody’s
cell as “inhumane,” and Morrison requests to see the conditions in which Moody is

-2-

being housed so that he may evaluate Moody’s future complaints. (Doc. 18-1 at 3).
Moody also submitted a grievance response from Chatman stating that the cell has
“appropriate temperatures and ventilation.” (Doc. 18-1 at 4). As the Magistrate Judge
noted, Moody alleges in his complaint that Piercy told him she could not move him “due
to Warden Chatman.” (Docs. 1 at 7; 8 at 7). This allegation, standing alone, was not
sufficient to demonstrate that Chatman knew of an excessive risk to Moody’s health or
safety and chose to disregard it. (Doc. 8 at 5). However, considering the allegation
together with the objection and exhibits, and with the benefit of liberal construction,
Moody has sufficiently alleged that Chatman was both aware of the condition of
Moody’s cell and that Chatman caused the deprivation. See Marsh v. Butler Cty., Ala.,
268 F.3d 1014, 1028 (11th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (“Plaintiffs’ allegations that the County received many
reports of the conditions but took no remedial measures is sufficient to allege deliberate
indifference to the substantial risk of serious harm faced by inmates in the Jail.”). This
claim may proceed.
B.

Retaliation

The Magistrate Judge also recommends dismissing Moody’s claim that he was
barred from the law library in retaliation for filing suit because he has not identified who
barred him from the library. (Doc. 8 at 7). In his objection, Moody alleges that Chatman
knew he was barred from the law library because Moody submitted grievances about
the ban and his attorneys notified Chatman of the ban via letter. (Doc. 18). Although
not clear, the Court will assume Moody is alleging that Chatman barred him from the
library.

-3-

Moody submitted exhibits to support his objection: a grievance response from
Chatman about Moody’s access to the law library and a letter from attorney Thomas J.
Mew to Chatman which notes that Moody has expressed concern about his access to
legal resources. (Doc. 18-1 at 1-He’s2). However, these exhibits do not show that
Chatman himself barred Moody from the library; at most, they show that Chatman was
aware of the restriction on Moody’s access to the library. Regardless, the grievance
response notes that Moody’s “assaultive/destructive behavior” has resulted in “special
procedures” being put in place to allow Moody to visit the law library and that
“documentation shows that [he] receive[s] law library material regularly.” (Doc. 18-1 at
1). Therefore, the grievance response shows that Moody still has access to materials
from the law library. More importantly, it shows that the disciplinary restrictions on
Moody’s access to the law library are due to Moody’s improper behavior, not because
he was exercising a constitutionally protected right as he alleged in his complaint. See
Hoefling v. City of Miami, 811 F.3d 1271, 1277 (11th Cir. 2016) (“A district court can
generally consider exhibits attached to a complaint in ruling on a motion to dismiss, and
if the allegations of the complaint about a particular exhibit conflict with the contents of
the exhibit itself, the exhibit controls.”). Thus, Moody has not sufficiently alleged that
Chatman or any other prison official was “subjectively motivated to discipline” him for
exercising his constitutional rights by barring him from the law library. Moton v. Cowart,
631 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir. 2011). This claim is DISMISSED.
II. CONCLUSION
The Court has reviewed the Recommendation, and the Court ACCEPTS in part
and REJECTS in part the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the

-4-

Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the conditions-of-confinement claim against Chatman
may proceed along with the claims against Whiters, Eutsey, Miller, and Piercy. The
retaliation claim is DISMISSED. It is ORDERED that service be made on Warden
Bruce Chatman and that he file an answer or such other response as may be
appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the Prison Litigation
Reform Act. The Defendants are also reminded of the duty to avoid unnecessary
service expenses and of the possible imposition of expenses for failure to waive service.
The Plaintiff is reminded of his duty to keep the clerk of court and all opposing attorneys
advised of his current address, duty to prosecute this action, and the provisions
regarding discovery in the Magistrate Judge’s order.
SO ORDERED, this 11th day of April, 2016.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-5-