Franklin v. Georgia Department of Corrections

Filing 13

ORDER granting #6 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, directing the Clerk to terminate all pending motions and deadlines, enter judgment in favor of Defendant GDC, and close the case. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 05/22/2023. (jlh)

Case 3:23-cv-00030-DHB-BKE Document 13 Filed 05/22/23 Page 1 of 3

IN THE

UNITED

STATES DISTRICT

COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIADUBLIN DIVISION

ArT.-i '-. V

» .

.

■ ■ ■ ■!

'

.

i ,

2GZ3 HAY 22 P 3- 03
AARON ELI

FRANKLIN,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*
■*

V.

*

CV

323-030

★

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF

*

CORRECTIONS,

*
★

Defendant.

*

ORDER

On

March

2,

2023,

Plaintiff

Aaron

Eli

Franklin

filed

a

complaint in the Superior Court of Monroe County wherein he sets
forth two causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff was

incarcerated at Johnson State Prison at all times relevant to the

allegations in the complaint.

The case was properly removed on

March

Defendant

29,

Corrections

2023.

At

("GDC")

present.

has

filed

a

motion

Georgia

for

Department

judgment

on

of

the

pleadings.

The complaint alleges that the GDC, which operates the Johnson
State Prison, violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights in two
ways.

First, Plaintiff claims that the Johnson State Prison was

inadequately staffed, which allowed four inmates to physically
attack him on September 7, 2021.

Second, Plaintiff claims he was

improperly incarcerated from November 5, 2022 to February 27, 2023.

Case 3:23-cv-00030-DHB-BKE Document 13 Filed 05/22/23 Page 2 of 3

Plaintiff seeks money damages for both claims.
the motion, these facts are taken as true.

For purposes of

See Hart v. Hodges,

587 F.3d 1288, 1290 n.l (ll^h cir. 2009).

"After the pleadings are closed - but early enough not to
delay trial - a party may move for judgment on the pleadings."

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).

"Judgment on the pleadings is proper when

no issues of material fact exist, and the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law based on the substance of the

pleadings and any judicially noticed facts."

Cunningham v. Dist.

Att^y^s Off, for Escambia Cnty., 592 F.3d 1237, 1255 (ll'^^ Cir.
2010) (citation omitted).
The GDC contends that the Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiff's
§ 1983 claims.

The Court concurs.

The Eleventh Amendment bars a

plaintiff from suing a state or its agencies in federal court
unless the state has expressly waived its sovereign immunity and
consented to suit.

Welch v. Texas Dep't of Highways, 483 U.S.

468, 472-73 (1987); Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman,

465 U.S. 89, 98-100 (1984).

Federal civil rights statutes like §

1983 do not abrogate the sovereign immunity granted by the Eleventh
Amendment.

(1989).

Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 67

Thus, Plaintiff's suit against the GDC is barred under

the Eleventh Amendment.

See Stevens v. Gay, 864 F.2d 113, 115

(ll^^'^ Cir. 1989) ("The Eleventh Amendment bars [suit] against the
Georgia

Department

of

Corrections"

regardless

of

the

relief

Case 3:23-cv-00030-DHB-BKE Document 13 Filed 05/22/23 Page 3 of 3

sought.). Notably, Plaintiff's response to the motion for judgment
on the pleadings utterly fails to address the GDC's claim of
sovereign immunity.

Upon the foregoing, Defendant GDC's motion for judgment on
the pleadings (doc. no. 6) is GRANTED.

The Clerk is directed to

TERMINATE all pending motions and deadlines, ENTER JUDGMENT in

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this

of May,

2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE