Brockington v. Georgia Department of Corrections et al

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING 7 Report and Recommendations as to Brockington's claims against the Georgia Department of Corrections and all claims for damages, but denied as to the requests for the administration of polygraph testing. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 6/26/14. (wwp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION
GERALD EUGENE BROCKINGTON,
Plaintiff,
V.

6:14-cv-8

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff Gerald Brockington has sued
the Georgia Department of Corrections and
four individuals (Sgt. Chris Tarver, Sgt.
Jonathan Evans, John W. Paul, and Robert
Toole, all in their official capacities) for
allegedly failing to protect him from a
violent cellmate. ECF No. 1. The
Magistrate Judge, discharging his
responsibilities under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
screened the complaint for viable claims and
issued a Report and Recommendation
(R&R). ECF No. 7. The Court agrees with
the Magistrate that sovereign immunity bars
all of Brockington's claims for money
damages. However, because his complaint,
read with the solicitude owed pro se
plaintiffs, requests further injunctive relief,
his claim is not wholly barred.
Brockington has sued Tarver, Evans,
Paul, and Toole in their official capacities.
"While state defendants sued in their official
capacity for monetary damages under §
1983 are immune from suit under the
Eleventh Amendment, they are not immune
from claims seeking prospective declaratory

or injunctive relief." Smith v. Fla. Dep ' of
Corrs., 318 F. App'x 726, 728 (11th Cir.
2008). The vast majority of Brockington's
requested relief is backward-looking and
monetary. See ECF No. 1 at 7 (requesting
attorney's fees and $150,000 in damages).
Those claims are DISMISSED.
But, he also requests the Court "to have
each official directed to take a polygraph
examination . . . ." Id He points out that
the Georgia Department of Corrections
Standard Operating Procedures requires
employees to "submit to any required
polygraph." Such relief is not
retrospective, and it does not seek monetary
damages. Brockington may lack, for other
reasons, the legal authority to request such
injunctive relief, but sovereign immunity
does not bar it.
The Georgia Department of Corrections
is an extension of the state of Georgia. As
the Magistrate Judge noted, it enjoys the
same sovereign immunity protections as the
individual defendants. See Will v. Mich.
Dep 't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66-67
(1989). And whether it could be sued for
injunctive relief or not, an administrative
division cannot submit to a polygraph.
Therefore, the claims against the Georgia
Department of Corrections are
DISMISSED.
The R&R is ADOPTED as to
Brockington's claims against the Georgia
Department of Corrections and all claims for
damages, but DENIED as to his requests for
Georgia Department of Corrections Standard
available at
Operating Procedures 13,
http://www.gdcjobs.com/NewHire/pd17Emp1oyee_Sta
ndards_of_Conduct_IVO 14-000 1_SOP.pdf (last
accessed June 23, 2013).

the administration of polygraph testing.
Those claims—for now—may proceed. The
Defendants, if they so choose, may file a
Motion to Dismiss explaining why the Court
should dismiss the remaining claims.

This

day of June 2014.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

2