Simmons v. Williams et al
Filing
95
ORDER ADOPTING 93 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Overruling 94 Objections, denying 73 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, denying 75 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Granted in Part and Denied in Part 41 Motion to Dismiss, denying [7 2] Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, denying 46 Motion for Default Judgment, denying 71 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, denying 83 Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Antonio Simmons. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 9/20/17. (wwp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION
ANTONIO SIMMONS,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:14-cv-l 11
v.
WARDEN STANLEY WILLIAMS, et al,
Defendants.
ORDER
Presently before the Court are Defendants' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation dated August 9, 2017.
(Doc. 94.) After an independent and de novo
review of the entire record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation. (Doc. 93.) Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Defendants' Objections,
and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, an inmate housed at Smith State Prison in Glennville, Georgia, filed this cause
of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l, et seq., on October 15, 2014, contesting certain
conditions of his confinement.
In addition, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment,
(doc. 46), Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law, (docs. 71-73, 75), and a Motion for
Injunction, (doc. 83). Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on October 9, 2015. (Doc. 41.) On
August 9, 2017, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant in part and deny in part
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court
dismiss Plaintiffs retaliation and forced shaving claims, procedural due process claims,
RLUIPA, First Amendment, and Fourth Amendment claims for monetary relief, as well as his
Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims.
(Doc. 93, pp 2-3.)
However, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to
Plaintiffs RLUIPA, First Amendment claims, and Fourth Amendment claims for injunctive and
declaratory relief, Eighth Amendment excessive force, failure to intervene, and deliberate
indifference claims, and Plaintiffs supervisory liability claims.
(Id.)
The Magistrate Judge
further recommended that that the Court deny Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment, (doc. 46),
Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law, (docs. 71-73, 75), and Motion for Injunction,
(doc. 83).
DISCUSSION
In their Objections, (doc. 94), Defendants aver that the Magistrate Judge did not consider
their arguments for dismissal of Plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief and erroneously
recommended that Plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief proceed. Defendants primarily argue
that the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") bars Plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief,
because his requests are not narrowly drawn, nor are they the least inclusive means necessary to
correct the alleged violations of his federal rights. Defendants maintain that Plaintiffs requests
for injunctive relief "essentially seek[ ] to make the Court the administrator responsible for the
day-to-day management of the security measures in place at Smith State Prison" and, therefore,
are subject to dismissal. (Id at pp. 3-4.)
The PLRA provides that a court may "not grant or approve any prospective relief unless
the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the
violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation
of the Federal right."
See 18 U.S.C. § 3626.
Accordingly, as Defendants argue in their
Objections, any injunctive relief granted to Plaintiff must be narrowly drawn and extend no
further than necessary to remedy Plaintiffs violation.
premature at this stage.
However, Defendants' objection is
The Magistrate Judge did not recommend that the Court enjoin
Defendants from engaging in any behavior or order that officials at Smith State Prison enact or
change any policy. Rather, the Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff stated a viable claim
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for which injunctive relief may be granted at a
later date. See Lynch v. Lewis, No. 7:14-CV-24, 2015 WL 1296235, at *5 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 23,
2015) ("In their motions to dismiss Defendants assert that Plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief is
overly broad .... The magistrate [judge] denied Defendants' motion on this basis, finding that
'any restriction or elimination of the injunctive relief sought by Plaintiff would be premature at
this point.'").
Moreover, while the PLRA requires that the Court fashion relief that is narrowly drawn,
extends no further than necessary, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the
violation of the Federal right, the Court still retains discretion to fashion relief within those
guidelines. "[W]hen district courts are properly acting as courts of equity, they have discretion
[to fashion injunctive relief] unless a statute clearly provides otherwise."
United States v.
Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Co-op., 532 U.S. 483, 496 (2001). See Lamarca v. Turner, 995 F2d
1526, 1543 (11th Cir. 1993): ("[District courts have broad discretion to fashion equitable
relief[.]"); Thomas v. Bryant, 614 F.3d 1288, 1323 n.33 (11th Cir. 2010) ("[T]he [district] court
acknowledged that it [ ] had a duty to fashion appropriate injunctive relief, obviously with
reference to the needs-narrowness-intrusiveness requirement" of the PLRA.). The PLRA will
guide the scope of any injunctive reliefthe Court may impose. However, it does not require that
the Court dismiss any and all claims for injunctive relief at this stage. The Court may fashion
appropriate relief at a later date, should Plaintiff ultimately prevail on his claims.1
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, after an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the Court
concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
Therefore, the Court
OVERRULES Defendants' Objections and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation as the opinion of the Court. The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in
part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 41.)
The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs retaliation and forced
shaving claims, due to his failure to exhaust those claims.
The Court also GRANTS
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs procedural due process claims for failure to state a
claim, Plaintiffs RLUIPA, First Amendment, and Fourth Amendment claims for monetary
relief, and Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims.
The Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs RLUIPA, First
Amendment, and Fourth Amendment claims for injunctive relief, Eighth Amendment excessive
force, failure to intervene, and deliberate indifference to medical needs claims, and Plaintiffs
supervisory liability claims. Accordingly, those claims remain pending. The Court DENIES
Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment, (doc. 46), DENIES Plaintiffs Motions for Judgment as
1 As noted above, Defendants object that the Magistrate Judge "misstated that Defendants had not sought
dismissal of Plaintiffs injunctive claims/' (doc. 94, p. 2). However, a review of the Report and
Recommendation reveals that the Magistrate Judge acknowledged and considered Defendants' arguments
as to Plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief First, the Magistrate Judge specifically noted that
"[defendants maintain . . . Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief." (doc. 93, p. 8). The Magistrate
Judge then analyzed why Plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief should proceed within his discussion of
Defendants' qualified immunity arguments. The Magistrate Judge's observation that "Defendants ma[d]e
no independent argument, such as mootness, regarding Plaintiffs claims for declaratory or injunctive
relief pertained to Defendants' qualified immunity arguments. This observation was correct.
Accordingly, this objection is without merit.
a Matter of Law, (docs. 71-73, 75), and DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Injunction, (doc. 83).
The parties are reminded to follow the directives set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Order dated
August 9, 2017. (Doc. 93.)
SO ORDERED, this JZ(f^&w ofSeptember, 2017.
IIEF JUDGE
UNITED^STATES DISTRICT COURT
fHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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?