BIGGERS v. DAVIS et al
Filing
28
ORDER ADOPTING as modified 6 Report and Recommendations. The Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims against Defendants Sheriff Davis, Captain Boatwright, and the Bibb LEC are DISMISSED without prejudice. Th e Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Trinity Food Services and Alfred Haugabrook are DISMISSED without prejudice. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Williams, Brooks, Billingsley, Woot en, Phillips, Saidi, Crawford, Robinson, and Lawrence are allowed to proceed for further factual development. Additionally, the Plaintiff's motion to amend is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and his Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Officer Stubbs, Officer Smith, Officer Crumpler, Officer Jones, Officer P. Richard, Officer Collins, Officer Denny, Officer Brinson, Officer Johnson, Officer Maze, Officer Callaway, and Officer Davis are also allowed to proceed. Also, the Plaintiff 's First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Williams and Robinson are allowed to proceed. Finally the Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief and appointment of counsel are DENIED. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 5/15/2017. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
TERENCE BIGGERS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Sheriff DAVID DAVIS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-CV-532 (MTT)
ORDER
Before the Court is the Recommendation (Doc.6) of United States Magistrate
Charles H. Weigle concerning Plaintiff Terence Biggers’s Complaint (Doc. 1). After
screening the Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Magistrate Judge
recommends dismissing the Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment false imprisonment claims as
frivolous. Doc. 6 at 7-8. The Magistrate Judge also recommends the Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment claims against Defendants Trinity Food Services and Alfred Haugabrook
be dismissed “with leave to amend” and ordered the Plaintiff to amend his complaint.
Doc. 6 at 12. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge recommends the Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment claims against Defendants Williams, Brooks, Billingsley, Wooten, Phillips,
Saidi, Crawford, Robinson, and Lawrence and his First Amendment retaliation claim be
allowed to proceed for further factual development. Doc. 6 at 9-10. The Plaintiff has
amended his Eighth Amendment claims against Trinity and Haugabrook and objected to
the Recommendation. Doc 17. Thus, the Court has performed a de novo review of the
portions of the Recommendation to which he objects and ADOPTS as modified the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
In his Objection, the Plaintiff amends his Eighth Amendment claim, in accordance
with the Magistrate Judge’s instructions. Doc. 17 at 2. However, in doing so, the
Plaintiff merely restates the allegations in his complaint. See id. The Plaintiff again fails
to state a claim as he does not allege that the unsanitary conditions of which he
complains are a direct result of a policy or custom of Haugabrook or Trinity Foods. See,
e.g., Bucker v. Toro, 116 F.3d 450, 452 (11th Cir. 1997). Thus, the Plaintiff’s claims
against Trinity and Haugabrook are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.
In attempting to amend his claims against Haugabrook and Trinity, the Plaintiff
appears to attempt to add claims against additional prison officers that he alleges “cook,
prepare, and serve the inadequate meals in Bibb County LEC.” Doc. 17 at 2. The
Court reads this as a motion to amend or add parties. Courts “should freely give leave
[to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In a finding the Court
now adopts, the Magistrate Judge allowed similar claims against prison officials to
proceed as failure to provide adequate nutrition may give rise to the level of cruel and
unusual punishment. Doc. 6 at 9-10. All but one of the defendants that the Plaintiff now
seeks to add are corrections officers. The Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Bibb
County LEC and, according to his allegations, the Defendants currently work at Bibb
County LEC and have continued to commit the alleged constitutional violations up to the
time when he filed his Objection, March 9, 2017. See Doc. 17 at 2. Therefore, claims
against those defendants do not appear to be barred by the applicable two-year statute
of limitations and the Court GRANTS the motion to amend as to those individuals. But
-2-
Ms. Mathis, whom the Plaintiff also seeks to add as a defendant, appears to be an
employee of Trinity Food Services and therefore, as to her, the motion to amend is
DENIED because, like the claims against Haugabrook and Trinity, the Plaintiff fails to
state a claim for relief against her. See id. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part and
DENIES in part the Plaintiff’s motion to amend. The Plaintiff is allowed to add Eighth
Amendment claims against Officer Stubbs, Officer Smith, Officer Crumpler, Officer
Jones, Officer P. Richard, Officer Collins, Officer Denny, Officer Brinson, Officer
Johnson, Officer Maze, Officer Callaway, and Officer Davis.
In his Objection, the Plaintiff also asks to be transferred from Bibb County LEC to
another facility because he fears reprisals from the guards that he is suing. Doc. 17 at
3-4. The Court reads this as a motion for injunctive relief and DENIES that motion for
the following reasons. First, the Plaintiff has not proven the prerequisites for a
preliminary injunction: “(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).
Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s requested injunction is not narrow or necessary as required
by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2) (“Preliminary
injunctive relief 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. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse
impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the
preliminary relief . . . .”); see also United States v. Sec'y, Florida Dep't of Corr., 778 F.3d
-3-
1223, 1227 (11th Cir. 2015); Thomas v. Bryant, 614 F.3d 1288, 1320 (11th Cir. 2010).
Finally, Courts must afford deference to state or local prison officials regarding the dayto-day administration of prisons. See Preiser v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 475, 491–92
(1973).
Finally, the Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of his motion to
appoint counsel and again moves for appointment of counsel. Doc. 17 at 1. As the
Magistrate Judge found, this case does not represent an “exceptional circumstance[ ]”
that calls for the appointment of counsel. Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 (11th
Cir. 1987). The Court DENIES this motion.
The Recommendation is ADOPTED as modified. The Plaintiff’s Fourth
Amendment claims against Defendants Sheriff Davis, Captain Boatwright, and the Bibb
LEC are DISMISSED without prejudice. The Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims
against Defendants Trinity Food Services and Alfred Haugabrook are DISMISSED
without prejudice. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against
Defendants Williams, Brooks, Billingsley, Wooten, Phillips, Saidi, Crawford, Robinson,
and Lawrence are allowed to proceed for further factual development. Additionally, the
Plaintiff’s motion to amend is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and his Eighth
Amendment claims against Defendants Officer Stubbs, Officer Smith, Officer Crumpler,
Officer Jones, Officer P. Richard, Officer Collins, Officer Denny, Officer Brinson, Officer
Johnson, Officer Maze, Officer Callaway, and Officer Davis are also allowed to proceed.
Also, the Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Williams and
Robinson are allowed to proceed. Finally the Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief and
appointment of counsel are DENIED.
-4-
SO ORDERED, this 15th day of May, 2017.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
-5-
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?