Nurideen v. Ware State Prison Medical Department et al
Filing
33
ORDER denying 30 Motion to Preserve Court's Review of Claims, and denying 31 Motion for Supplemental Jurisdiction. Plaintiff's conspiracy claims against all Defendants are DISMISSED. Plaintiff's Complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and as amended, is DISMISSED, without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 5/5/2015. (csr)
In the Oniteb 'tate
itrttt Court
for the 6outbern 1itrttt of georgia
aptro
1ibiton
*
*
*
Plaintiff,
*
*
V.
*
*
WARE STATE PRISON MEDICAL
*
DEPARTMENT, WARE STATE PRISON
*
WARDEN, FNU HART, ROBERT TOOLE,
*
GLEN JOHNSON, J. RECTOR,
J. JAMIKOWSKI, DOCTOR FERRELL (MALE), *
*
DOCTOR FERRELL (FEMALE), DOCTOR
TESFAYE, MS. BRADY, AND MS. MCCRAY, *
*
*
Defendants.
SAEED ISHMAEL NURIDEEN,
CIVIL ACTION NO.:CV514-41
ORDER
Plaintiff, who is currently housed at Ware State Prison in
Waycross, Georgia, filed a cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Dkt. No. 1. For the reasons set forth below,
Plaintiff's Motions to Preserve Court's Review of Claims and for
Supplemental Jurisdiction, dkt. nos. 30, 31, are DENIED.
For
these same reasons, Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED, without
prejudice.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, and
the Magistrate Judge conducted the requisite frivolity review
AO 72A
(Rev. 8182)
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Dkt. Nos. 3, 9. The Magistrate
Judge noted Plaintiff only named "Ware State Prison Medical
Department" and "Ware State Prison Warden" as Defendants, and
Plaintiff failed to set forth viable claims for relief. The
Magistrate Judge recommended Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed
based on Plaintiff's failure to state a viable claim pursuant to
Section 1983. Dkt. No. 9. In response, Plaintiff filed a
Motion to Amend/Correct his Complaint and a Motion for Extension
of Time to Provide Proper Names of Defendants. Dkt. Nos. 12,
13. The Magistrate Judge granted these Motions, provided
Plaintiff with thirty (30) days in which to file any additional
desired amendment, and directed the Clerk of Court to add FNU
Hart, Robert Toole, Glen Johnson, J. Rector, J. Janikowski, Dr.
Ferrell (male), Dr. Ferrell (female), Dr. Tesfaye, Ms. Brady,
and Ms. McCray as Defendants upon the docket of this case. Dkt.
No. 15. The Magistrate Judge also permitted Plaintiff to amend
certain portions of his original Complaint. Dkt. No. 22.
The Magistrate Judge then conducted another frivolity
review of Plaintiff's claims, which he summarized as follows:
In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that he
accepted Defendant Ferrell's (male) offer to provide
medical treatment on May 14, 2011. Plaintiff also
asserts that he had an asthma attack on March 26,
2012, and Defendants Rector and Jankowski (sic)
intentionally hindered his ability to obtain treatment
Defendant Ferrell (female) prescribed for him.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Hart, who was the
warden at the time, became aware of the situation
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
1H
2
through the grievance process and did nothing.
Plaintiff contends that he had another asthma attack
on April 19, 2013, and Defendant McCray refused to
provide medical treatment until she was ordered to do
so by nonmedical personnel. Plaintiff also contends
that Defendant Toole, who was the warden at that time,
received his grievance concerning this matter and
failed to act. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
Tesfaye changed his medications without his consent on
March 19, 2014. On this same date, Plaintiff alleges,
Defendant Brady refused his request to arrange a
consult with a doctor. Finally, Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant Johnson, the current warden, was
presented with these concerns and failed to act.
Dkt. No. 23, p. 2. The Magistrate Judge noted that, although
Plaintiff's claims appeared to share a common legal foundation
(specifically, deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs), he failed to show his claims are related to each other,
as the events he set forth were separate incidents too remote in
time from each other to be related. Id. at pp. 2-3. The
Magistrate Judge directed Plaintiff to advise the Court as to
which claim he wished to pursue in this cause of action and to
file separate complaints regarding the other three (3) incidents
detailed in his Amended Complaint. The Magistrate Judge also
advised Plaintiff his failure to file a proper response to the
Order could result in the dismissal of his entire cause of
action. Id. at p. 3.
Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Leave to join a
conspiracy claim to his Complaint, along with a supporting
affidavit. Dkt. Nos. 24, 26. The Magistrate Judge granted
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
1
3
Plaintiff's Motion, but only to the extent Plaintiff's
contentions would be considered during the frivolity review of
Plaintiff's claims. Dkt. No. 29. Plaintiff was advised once
again that his claims are unrelated and was once again directed
to inform the Court of which claim he wanted to pursue in his
cause of action. Plaintiff was advised again that his failure
to respond to that Order in a proper manner may result in the
dismissal of his entire cause of action. Id. at p. 2.
In response to the Magistrate Judge's directives, Plaintiff
has filed a Motion to Preserve Court's Review of Claims, a
Motion for Supplemental Jurisdiction, and an Affidavit in
Support of Expert Opinion. Dkt. Nos. 30, 31, 32. Plaintiff's
Motions contain no factual allegations or anything more than
passing mentions of citations to law. Without more, Plaintiff's
Motions are DENIED.
The Court notes Plaintiff's affidavit used in support of
his previously-filed motion to add conspiracy claim. In this
affidavit, Plaintiff asserts all named Defendants "conspired in
acting deliberately indifferent" to his serious medical needs.
Dkt. No. 26, p. 2. Plaintiff maintains Defendants should be
joined in this cause of action "due to a series of occurrences
arising from the same single transaction/contract." Id.
Plaintiff states the "contract" began on May 14, 2011, and he
describes "a series of occurrences/claims which infers (sic)
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
1
Defendants[ I ]conspiracy[.]" Id. Plaintiff continues and says
he "desires to present prima facie evidence of Defendants[']
conspiracy[.]" Id. Plaintiff makes no further contentions
regarding his claim that Defendants conspired together to be
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.
DISCUSSION
As the Magistrate Judge explained in his Report and
Recommendation, in any civil action in which a prisoner seeks
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity, the Court must screen the complaint for
cognizable claims before or as soon as possible after docketing.
Dkt. No.. 9 at pp. 1-2. The Court must dismiss the complaint or
any portion of the complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary damages from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) (1) & (2)
A plaintiff must set forth "a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief."
FED.
R. Civ.
P. 8 (a) (2) . In order to state a claim for relief under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must satisfy two elements. First, a
plaintiff must allege that an act or omission deprived him "of
some right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution
or laws of the United States." Hale v. Tallapoosa Cnty, 50
F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th Cir. 1995). Second, a plaintiff must
A072AII
(Rev. 8/82)
5
allege that the act or omission was committed by "a person
acting under color of state law." Id.
To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, "a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation
omitted) . A plaintiff must assert "more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not" suffice. Bell Ati. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Because "[p]ro se pleadings are held
to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by
attorneys[,]" they are liberally construed. Boxer X v. Harris,
437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006). However, this liberal
construction "does not give a court license to serve as
de facto
counsel . . . or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in
order to sustain an action[.]"' GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of
Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998) (internal
citation omitted)
A conspiracy "to violate another person's constitutional
rights violates section 1983." Rowe v. City of Fort Lauderdale,
279 F.3d 1271, 1283 (11th Cir. 2002) . "To establish a prima
facie case of section 1983 conspiracy, a plaintiff must show,
among other things, that the defendants -.' -, reached an
understanding to violate [his] rights.'" Id. (quoting Strength
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
1
6
v. Hubert, 854 F.2d 421, 425 (11th Cir. 1988)). Plaintiff's
allegations fail to meet this standard.
His Complaint makes
nothing more than a bare assertion that Defendants conspired
together, which is an insufficient basis of liability under
Section 1983. Plaintiff fails to assert that any of the named
Defendants had a meeting of the minds or otherwise made an
agreement to violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights.
Plaintiff's conclusory allegation that Defendants conspired to
violate his rights is insufficient to state a plausible claim
for relief. Bell Ati. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. For
these reasons, Plaintiff's conspiracy claims are DISMISSED.
Because Plaintiff's conspiracy claims are dismissed, he has
not shown a causal connection between his separate allegations
of alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
Despite being instructed by the Magistrate Judge on more than
one occasion to make clear what allegations he seeks to pursue
through this action, Plaintiff has failed to do so. Plaintiff's
claims are unrelated, and, therefore, the Court will not allow
the joinder of them in one action..
FED. R. CIV. P.
20(a) (A
plaintiff may not join unrelated claims and various defendants
unless the claims "arise out of the same transaction,
occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any
question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in
the action.").
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
1
7
Put simply, after having been given every opportunity to do
so, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Rules of Civil
Procedure and with this Court's Orders. Giles v. Wal-Mart
Distrib. Ctr., 359 F. App'x 91, 93 (11th Cir. 2009) ("Even a pro
se litigant is required to comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, particularly after being expressly directed to
do so."). Consequently, Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED,
without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's Motions to Preserve Court's Review of Claims
and for Supplemental Jurisdiction are DENIED.
Dkt. Nos. 30, 31.
Plaintiff's conspiracy claims against all Defendants are
DISMISSED.
Plaintiff's Complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and as amended, is DISMISSED, without prejudice. Should
Plaintiff wish to pursue the claims set forth in his Complaint
in this Court, he may do so by filing separate causes of action
for each unrelated instance of alleged deliberate indifference
to his serious medical needs.
SO ORDERED,
this
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AO 72A
(Rev. 8l2)
8
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?