AMERSON v. OLIVER et al
Filing
18
ORDER REJECTING 12 Report and Recommendations; DENYING AS MOOT 8 Motion to Cure Default ; DENYING AS MOOT 9 Motion for Extension of Filing Deadline. ORDER to Recast Co mplaint: Amerson is ORDERED to recast his complaint to assert the factual allegations raised in his objections and shall recast his complaint within FOURTEEN DAYS of the date of this order. If Amerson fails to file a recast complaint or fails to foll ow the instructions in this Order, his action will be dismissed without prejudice. It is DIRECTED that the Clerk of Court forward to Amerson a standard §1983 form with the civil action number on it along with a copy of this Order. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC T TREADWELL on 1/28/2025. (kat) (Main Document 18 replaced on 1/28/2025) (rka).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER L. AMERSON,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
Commissioner TYRONE
OLIVER, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-CV-149 (MTT)
ORDER
Christopher Amerson filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and moved to proceed in
forma pauperis. Docs. 1; 2. On preliminary review, United States Magistrate Judge
Amelia G. Helmick recommended that Christopher Amerson’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis be denied and his complaint be dismissed without prejudice.
Doc. 12. 1 Amerson objected (Docs. 13; 14), so pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the
Court reviews the Recommendation de novo. After review, the Court rejects the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.
DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Because Amerson had more than three federal cases dismissed for reasons
constituting strikes, he was required to allege facts showing that he is in imminent
1 The Magistrate Judge also recommended that Amerson’s remaining motions (Docs. 8; 9) be denied as
moot. Doc. 12 at 1. Although the Court rejects the Recommendation, Amerson’s Motion to Cure Default
(Doc. 8) and Motion for Extension of Filing Deadline (Doc. 9) are DENIED as moot.
danger of serious physical injury to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The magistrate judge concluded that Amerson did not show he was in imminent danger
because he was transferred from Macon State Prison (“MSP”) to Telfair State Prison
(“TSP”) “just a few days after he filed his complaint,” which mooted any alleged
imminent danger. Docs. 8 at 1; 12 at 6.
Amerson filed two objections in which he argues that the dangers he faced at
MSP are still present at TSP. Id. at 1. Specifically, Amerson argues that Commissioner
Oliver continues to mismanage GDC staff which has caused “systemic health and
safety issues” at TSP. Doc. 13 at 1. He alleges that gang members who were
threatening him at previous prisons have communicated with their affiliates at TSP and,
as a result, he has received death threats from inmates in his dorm. Id. at 2. Amerson
claims that when he arrived at TSP and was placed in his cell, gang members told him
that “if [he] gets out of the box he is going to be killed” and that “everyone is trying to kill
him.” Id. at 1-2. He also claims that rival gang members have killed and beaten several
inmates in his dorm. Id. at 5. Additionally, Amerson claims he is in a cell with a gang
member who he believes is attempting to kill him. Id. at 5.
In addition to the alleged threats, Amerson claims that TSP officials continue to
put his health in jeopardy. Docs. 13; 14. He alleges that TSP officials have failed to
provide him with treatment for his Hepatitis B and liver issues. Doc. 13 at 7. Amerson
also claims that TSP officials have contaminated his food. Doc. 14 at 2. He states that
he has experienced physical effects such as shakes, numbness on the left side of his
body, and lack of sleep. Id. Finally, Amerson alleges that he has reported his health
-2-
issues to TSP officials and requested protective custody due to the gang threats but has
received no assistance. Docs. 13 at 4; 14 at 2.
The Court has discretion to consider new facts and arguments raised for the first
time in an objection. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1290-91 (11th Cir. 2009).
When considering whether an inmate has alleged imminent danger, the Court should
view the prisoner’s complaint “as a whole” and construe the allegations liberally. Brown
v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1350 (11th Cir. 2004). Considering Amerson’s newly raised
facts and arguments, the Court finds that Amerson has adequately alleged imminent
danger of serious physical injury. See Smith v. Dewberry, 741 Fed. App’x 683, 687
(11th Cir. 2018); see also O’Connor v. Backman, 743 Fed. App’x 373, 375 (11th Cir.
2018).
Accordingly, Amerson is ORDERED to recast his complaint within FOURTEEN
DAYS of the date of this order to assert the factual allegations raised in his objection.
Because Amerson’s recast complaint will supersede the original, the Recommendation
(Doc. 12) is REJECTED. Amerson’s Motion to Cure Default (Doc. 8) and Motion for
Extension of Filing Deadline (Doc. 9) are DENIED as moot.
B. Order to Recast
In order to allow Amerson an opportunity to fully set forth his claims and
contentions, the Court will allow him to file one recast complaint. When doing so,
Amerson must follow these instructions.
Amerson must file one amended complaint that will take the place of his
previously filed complaint and any amendments or objections. The Court will not refer
to the previous complaint, amendments, or objections to determine if Amerson has
-3-
stated a claim. This one complaint should be no longer than TEN pages. Amerson
must write legibly. If the Court cannot read the complaint, it will be dismissed. Amerson
may not include exhibits with his complaint.
Amerson must list each defendant he wishes to sue in the heading of his
complaint. In the body of the complaint, Amerson must again list the name of each
defendant and tell the Court EXACTLY what that person did or did not do that violated
Amerson’s constitutional or federal statutory rights and EXACTLY when the action or
inaction occurred. If Amerson fails to link a claim to a defendant, that claim will be
dismissed.
Amerson may not join unrelated claims and defendants in a single action.
Amerson may join defendants in one action if he asserts “any right to relief … against
them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question
of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
20(a)(2)(A)-(B). “Whether multiple claims arise from the same transaction, occurrence,
or series of transactions or occurrences depends on whether a ‘logical relationship’
exists between the claims.” Rhodes v. Target Corp., 313 F.R.D. 656, 659 (M.D. Fla.
2016) (quoting Alexander v. Fulton Cnty., Ga., 207 F.3d 1303, 1323 (11th Cir. 2000),
overruled on other grounds by Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2003)). For
there to be a “logical relationship,” the claims must “arise from common operative facts.”
Barber v. America’s Wholesale Lender, 289 F.R.D. 364, 367 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (citations
omitted).
-4-
When filing the complaint, Amerson should keep in mind that “[a]s a general
matter, fictitious party pleading is not permitted in federal court.” Richardson v.
Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 738 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210,
1215-16 (11th Cir. 1992)). The Court has no way of identifying, much less serving
process on, John Doe Defendants. Amerson must provide the Defendants’ names or,
at the absolute least, provide specific descriptions that would allow the Defendants to be
identified and served.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) is REJECTED.
Accordingly, Amerson is ORDERED to recast his complaint to assert the factual
allegations raised in his objections (Docs. 13; 14) and shall recast his complaint within
FOURTEEN DAYS of the date of this order. If Amerson fails to file a recast complaint
or fails to follow the instructions in this Order, his action will be dismissed without
prejudice.
It is DIRECTED that the Clerk of Court forward to Amerson a standard §1983
form with the civil action number on it along with a copy of this Order. Amerson must
notify the Court immediately of any change of address. If he fails to do so, his action
may be dismissed.
SO ORDERED, this 28th day of January, 2025.
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?