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