Jackson et al v. Catanzariti et al

Filing 40

ORDER denying 36 Motion for a Stay of the proceedings. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Graham on 2/15/2013. (csr)

FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURJs OiST [CT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIk
STATESBORO DIVISION

laD FEB IS A ll 55
MIGUEL JACKSON and
KELVIN STEVENSON,

cLErL._____
Lfl L

Plaintiffs,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV612-113

V.

JOSEPH CATANZARITI; ANDREW
McFARLANE; JOSHUA EASON;
TIMONTHY SIMMONS; CANDICE
HILL; RETANIA HARVEY;
CHRISTOPHER HENDERSON;
NATHANIEL MILTON; SANDI WEST;
MELVIN WELLS; SHERRY RITCHIE;
BRANDON CEARNEL; CAROLYN
CARROL; JOSEPH POWELL;
DERIUS ATTICAL; SHELDON
DeLOACH; DARRYL DAVIS;
BENJAMIN ASHLEY; JOYCE
CARVER; SHARON FRASIER;
TAMMY WATKINS; LINDA BASS;
ELIZABETH HAIRE; JEFFERY
MULLIS; JARROD BENNETT;
JOSEPH WHITE; GORDON
PITIMAN; GENE TOOTLE;
JUSTIN SWOPE; GARY MITCHELL;
JOHN JONES; MICHAEL DeLOACH;
MARY ROACH; JELEESA MILLER;
CALEB HARRISON; RODERICK
CLAYTON; BRANDI JOSEPH;
KIM HARDEE; and CRYSTAL DOTSON,
Defendants
O RDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiffs Miguel Jackson and Kelvin Stevenson ("Plaintiffs"), inmates currently
incarcerated at Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison in Jackson, Georgia, filed

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contesting events that allegedly occurred at
Smith State Prison in Glennville, Georgia. Plaintiffs, who are represented by an
attorney, named 39 individuals as Defendants in this action. Four Defendants ("the
moving Defendants"), Joseph Catanzariti, Andrew McFarlane, Timothy Simmons, and
Nathaniel Milton, were served, and they filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative
Strike and Stay. After the moving Defendants filed their Motion, Plaintiffs filed an
Amended Complaint and a Response to the moving Defendants' Motion. The moving
Defendants filed a Reply to Plaintiffs Response to their Motion. Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint renders the moving Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative
Strike moot; therefore, that Motion should be DENIED. See Johnson v. Wellborn, 418
F. App'x 809, 813 (11th Cir. 2011) (district court denied motion to dismiss as moot, in
light of amended complaint); Trimble v. U.S. Social Security, 369 F. App'x 27, 29 (11th
Cir. 2010) (same); Taylor v. Alabama, 275 F. App'x 836, 838 (11th Cir. 2008) (stating
that when plaintiffs amended their complaint, defendants' motion to dismiss or in the
alternative motion for summary judgment became moot). Additionally, the moving
Defendants' request for a stay of the proceedings is DENIED.
A prisoner proceeding in a civil action against officers or employees of
government entities must comply with the mandates of the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A. In determining compliance, the court shall be
guided by the longstanding principle that pro se pleadings are entitled to liberal
construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Walker v. Dugger, 860 F.2d
1010, 1011 (11th Cir. 1988).

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

2

28 U.S.C. § 1915A requires a district court to screen the complaint for
cognizable claims before or as soon as possible after docketing. 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) and (2).
In Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.361 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997), the Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit interpreted the language contained in §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which is nearly identical to that contained in the screening provisions
at § 1915A(b). As the language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) closely tracks the language of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court held that the same standards for
determining whether to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) should
be applied to prisoner complaints filed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Mitchell, 112
F.3d at 1490. Although the court in Mitchell interpreted § 1915(e), its interpretation
guides this Court in applying the identica language of § 1915A.
The undersigned has completed the requisite review of Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint, (Doc. No. 24). Plaintiffs' allegations, when read in a light most favorable to
Plaintiffs, arguably state colorable claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28
U.S.C. § 1915A against all Defendants.
SO ORDERED and REPORTED and RECOMMENDED, this

/i day of

February, 2013.

VIES E. GRAHAI/1
ITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

\

..,

3