Ashley v. Shumake et al

Filing 16

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's claims against Defendants in their official capacities re: 1 Complaint filed by Justin S. Ashley. Any party seeking to object to this Report and Recommen dation is ordered to file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days of the date on which this Report and Recommendation is entered. (Objections to R&R due by 12/31/2015). A copy of Plaintiff's Complaint and a copy of this Order shall be served upon Defendants Ronnie Shumake, Carlton Murphy, and Cato Watkins in their individual capacities by the United States Marshall. ORDER directing service of the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 12/17/2015. (csr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

JUSTIN S. ASHLEY,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:15-cv-53

v.
RONNIE SHUMAKE; CARLTON
MURPHY; and CALO WATKINS,
Defendants.

ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, who is currently housed at Georgia State Prison in Reidsville, Georgia,
submitted a Complaint in the above captioned action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that
Defendants violated his constitutional rights. (Doc. 1.) The Court has conducted the requisite
frivolity review of that Complaint. For the reasons set forth below, I RECOMMEND that the
Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities. However,
Plaintiff arguably states colorable claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants
Ronnie Shumake, Carlton Murphy, and Calo Watkins in their individual capacities. A copy of
Plaintiff’s Complaint and a copy of this Order shall be served upon these three Defendants by the
United States Marshal without prepayment of cost.
BACKGROUND 1
Plaintiff filed this action on May 18, 2015, against Defendants who are CERT Officers at
Georgia State Prison (“GSP”). (Doc. 1.) He alleges that on the morning of October 1, 2014,
while he was in his cell, Defendants sprayed him with pepper spray without justifiable cause.
1

The below recited facts are taken from Plaintiff’s Complaint and are accepted as true, as they must be at
this stage.

(Id.at pp. 5–6.) He further contends that Defendants took these actions against him in retaliation
for his speaking to the Warden of GSP regarding the denial of his opportunity to attend a
correspondence course to get his high school diploma as well as the denial of access to the law
library and legal materials.

Id.

Plaintiff contends that Defendants did not allow him to

sufficiently wash the spray off of himself and then placed him back in the cell without removing
the residue of the spray from the cell. (Id. at pp. 9–10.) He states that the spray caused his lungs
and skin and chest to burn and that he was in excruciating agony and pain for 10 to 15 minutes.
(Id. at p. 10.) Plaintiff states that Defendants Shumake and Watkins were in a position to prevent
Defendant Murphy’s violation of Plaintiff’s rights but refused to stop him. (Id. at p. 11.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff seeks to bring this action in forma pauperis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), the Court may authorize the filing of a civil lawsuit without the prepayment
of fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all of his assets and shows
an inability to pay the filing fee and also includes a statement of the nature of the action which
shows that he is entitled to redress. Even if the plaintiff proves indigence, the Court must
dismiss the action if it is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(ii). Additionally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the
Court must review a complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity.
Upon such screening, the Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion thereof, that is
frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or which seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
When reviewing a Complaint on an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is
guided by the instructions for pleading contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain [among other things] . . .
a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 10 (requiring that claims be set forth in numbered paragraphs, each limited to a single set
of circumstances). Further, a claim is frivolous under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) “if it is ‘without
arguable merit either in law or fact.’” Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002)
(quoting Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001)).
Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by
the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Thompson v. Rundle, 393 F. App’x 675, 678 (11th Cir. 2010). Under that
standard, this Court must determine whether the complaint contains “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) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A
plaintiff must assert “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not” suffice. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Section 1915 also
“accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal
theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and
dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1349
(quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)).

In its analysis, the Court will abide by the long-standing principle that the pleadings of
unrepresented parties are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys and,
therefore, must be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Boxer X v.
Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006) (“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent
standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys.”) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Hughes v. Lott, 350
F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003)). However, Plaintiff’s unrepresented status will not excuse
3

mistakes regarding procedural rules. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“We
have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as
to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.”).
DISCUSSION
I.

Official Capacity Claims
Plaintiff cannot sustain a Section 1983 claim against Defendants in their official

capacities. States are immune from private suits pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment and
traditional principles of state sovereignty. Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 712–13 (1999).
Section 1983 does not abrogate the well-established immunities of a state from suit without its
consent. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 67 (1989). Because a lawsuit against
a state officer in his official capacity is “no different from a suit against the [s]tate itself,” such a
defendant is immune from suit under Section 1983. Id. at 71. Here, the State of Georgia would
be the real party in interest in a suit against Defendants in their official capacities as officers at a
state penal institution. Accordingly, the Eleventh Amendment immunizes these actors from suit
in their official capacities. See Free v. Granger, 887 F.2d 1552, 1557 (11th Cir. 1989). Absent a
waiver of that immunity, Plaintiff cannot sustain any constitutional claims against Defendants in
their official capacities, and these claims should be DISMISSED.
II.

Claims of Excessive Force
In order to state a claim for relief under Section 1983, Plaintiff must satisfy two elements.

First, he 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 Cty., 50 F.3d 1579,
1582 (11th Cir. 1995). Second, Plaintiff must allege that the act or omission was committed by
“a person acting under color of state law.” Id.

4

The Eighth Amendment imposes duties on prison officials including the duty to take
reasonable measures to ensure the safety of inmates. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828
(1994). This right to safety is violated when a defendant shows a deliberate indifference to a
substantial risk of serious harm. Carter v. Galloway, 352 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2003)
(citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 828). In order to prevail on such a claim, the plaintiff must establish
the following: (1) there was a substantial risk of serious harm to him; (2) defendant showed a
deliberate indifference to this risk; and (3) there is a causal connection between the defendant’s
acts or omissions and the alleged constitutional deprivation. Id.
The Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment governs the
amount of force that prison officials are entitled to use against inmates. Campbell v. Sikes, 169
F.3d 1353, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999). An excessive force claim has two requisite parts: an objective
and a subjective component. Sims v. Mashburn, 25 F.3d 980, 983 (11th Cir. 1994). In order to
satisfy the objective component, the inmate must show that the prison official’s conduct was
“sufficiently serious.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (quoting Wilson v. Seiter,
501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). The subjective component requires a showing that the force used
was “maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm” rather than “a good faith
effort to maintain or restore discipline.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320–21 (1986). In
order to determine whether the force was used for the malicious and sadistic purpose of causing
harm or whether the force was applied in good faith, courts consider the following factors: the
need for the exercise of force, the relationship between the need for force and the force applied,
the extent of injury that the inmate suffered, the extent of the threat to the safety of staff and
other inmates, and any efforts taken to temper the severity of a forceful response. Skelly v.

5

Okaloosa Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 456 F. App’x 845, 848 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting Fennell v.
Gilstrap, 559 F.3d 1212, 1217 (11th Cir. 2009)).
At this stage, Plaintiff has made sufficient allegations to state a plausible claim that
Defendants used excessive force against him on the date of the incident.
III.

Failure to Intervene
“[A]n officer can be liable for failing to intervene when another officer uses excessive

force.” Priester v. City of Riviera Beach, 208 F.3d 919, 924 (11th Cir.2000) (“[I]f a police
officer, whether supervisory or not, fails or refuses to intervene when a constitutional violation
such as an unprovoked beating takes place in his presence, the officer is directly liable[.]”
(alterations in original) (citing Ensley v. Soper, 142 F.3d 1402, 1407–08 (11th Cir.1998))).
“This liability, however, only arises when the officer is in a position to intervene and fails to do
so.” Id.; see also Keating v. City of Miami, 598 F.3d 753, 764 (11th Cir.2010) (explaining that a
direct failure to intervene claim “requir[es] the allegations to include facts showing the necessity
or real opportunity for the defendant-officers to intervene in a fellow officer’s unlawful
conduct”). However, if there is no underlying use of excessive force, another officer has no
obligation to intervene. Crenshaw v. Lister, 556 F.3d 1283, 1294 (11th Cir.2009).
At this stage, Plaintiff has stated a colorable claim that Defendants failed to intervene to
prevent fellow officers from violating the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
IV.

Retaliation
“It is an established principle of constitutional law that an inmate is considered to be

exercising his First Amendment right of freedom of speech when he complains to the prison’s
administrators about the conditions of his confinement.” O’Bryant v. Finch, 637 F.3d 1207,
1212 (11th Cir. 2011). It is also established that an inmate may maintain a cause of action

6

against prison administrators who retaliate against him for making such complaints. Id. (quoting
Smith v. Mosley, 532 F.3d 1270, 1276 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal citation and punctuation
omitted)). “To establish a First Amendment retaliation claim, a prisoner need not allege the
violation of an additional separate and distinct constitutional right; instead, the core of the claim
is that the prisoner is being retaliated against for exercising his right to free speech.”
O’Bryant, 637 F.3d at 1212. “To prevail, the inmate must establish these elements: (1) his
speech was constitutionally protected; (2) the inmate suffered adverse action such that the
administrator’s allegedly retaliatory conduct would likely deter a person of ordinary firmness
from engaging in such speech; and (3) there is a causal relationship between the retaliatory
action and the protected speech.” Smith, 532 F.3d at 1276 (citing Bennett v. Hendrix, 423 F.3d
1247, 1250, 1254 (11th Cir. 2005)).
Here, Plaintiff's assertions that he spoke to the Warden regarding the denial of Plaintiff’s
opportunity to attend a correspondence course to get his high school diploma as well as the
denial of access to the law library and legal materials are constitutionally protected speech.
Additionally, Plaintiff arguably asserts that a prisoner of “ordinary firmness” may have been
deterred from exercising his First Amendment rights based on Defendants’ alleged actions
following Plaintiff’s communications.

Bennett, 423 F.3d at 1252 (noting “adverse effect”

depends on the context of the alleged action and focuses on “the status of the speaker, the status
of the retaliator, the relationship between the speaker and the retaliator, and the nature of the
retaliatory acts[ ]”) (citing Thaddeus–X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 398 (6th Cir.1999)). Thus,
Plaintiff’s retaliation claims against Defendants remain pending.

7

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s
official capacity claims against all Defendants.
Any party seeking to object to this Report and Recommendation is ORDERED to file
specific written objections within fourteen (14) days of the date on which this Report and
Recommendation is entered. Any objections asserting that the Magistrate Judge failed to address
any contention raised in the Complaint must also be included. Failure to do so will bar any later
challenge or review of the factual findings or legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). A copy of the objections must be
served upon all other parties to the action. The filing of objections is not a proper vehicle
through which to make new allegations or present additional evidence.
Upon receipt of Objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above, a United
States District Judge will make a de novo determination of those portions of the report, proposed
findings, or recommendation to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Objections not
meeting the specificity requirement set out above will not be considered by a District Judge. A
party may not appeal a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation directly to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Appeals may be made only from a final
judgment entered by or at the direction of a District Judge. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED
to serve a copy of this Report and Recommendation upon the Plaintiff.
REMAINING CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
As laid out above, Plaintiff has stated plausible claims against Defendants Ronnie
Shumake, Carlton Murphy, and Calo Watkins in their individual capacities. Therefore, the

8

United States Marshal shall serve a copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint and a copy of this Order upon
these three Defendants without prepayment of cost.

Additionally, the Court provides the

following instructions regarding the future litigation of this case which the parties are urged to
read closely and follow.
INSTRUCTIONS TO DEFENDANTS
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the undersigned directs that service be
effected by the United States Marshal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). In most cases, the marshal will
first mail a copy of the complaint to the Defendant by first-class mail and request that the
Defendant waive formal service of summons. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d); Local Rule 4.7. Individual
and corporate defendants have a duty to avoid unnecessary costs of serving the summons, and
any such defendant who fails to comply with the request for waiver must bear the costs of
personal service unless good cause can be shown for the failure to return the waiver. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(d)(2). Generally, a defendant who timely returns the waiver is not required to answer
the complaint until sixty (60) days after the date that the marshal sent the request for waiver.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are hereby granted leave of court to take
the deposition of the Plaintiff upon oral examination. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a). Defendants are
further advised that the Court’s standard 140 day discovery period will commence upon the
filing of the last answer. Local Rule 26.1. Defendants shall ensure that all discovery, including
the Plaintiff’s deposition and any other depositions in the case, is completed within that
discovery period.
In the event that Defendants take the deposition of any other person, Defendants are
ordered to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30. As the Plaintiff

9

will likely not be in attendance for such a deposition, Defendants shall notify Plaintiff of the
deposition and advise him that he may serve on Defendants, in a sealed envelope, within ten (10)
days of the notice of deposition, written questions the Plaintiff wishes to propound to the
witness, if any. Defendants shall present such questions to the witness seriatim during the
deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c).
INSTRUCTIONS TO PLAINTIFF
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants or, if
appearance has been entered by counsel, upon their attorneys, a copy of every further pleading or
other document submitted for consideration by the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original
paper to be filed with the Clerk of Court a certificate stating the date on which a true and correct
copy of any document was mailed to Defendants or their counsel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. “Every
pleading shall contain a caption setting forth the name of the court, the title of the action, [and]
the file number.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a).
Plaintiff is charged with the responsibility of immediately informing this Court and
defense counsel of any change of address during the pendency of this action. Local Rule 11.1.
Plaintiff’s failure to notify the Court of a change in his address may result in dismissal of this
case.
Plaintiff has the responsibility for pursuing this case. For example, if Plaintiff wishes to
obtain facts and information about the case from Defendants, Plaintiff must initiate discovery.
See generally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, et seq. The discovery period in this case will expire 140 days
after the filing of the last answer. Local Rule 26.1. Plaintiff does not need the permission of the
Court to begin discovery, and Plaintiff should begin discovery promptly and complete it within
this time period. Local Rule 26.1. Discovery materials should not be filed routinely with the

10

Clerk of Court; exceptions include: when the Court directs filing; when a party needs such
materials in connection with a motion or response, and then only to the extent necessary; and
when needed for use at trial. Local Rule 26.4.
Interrogatories are a practical method of discovery for incarcerated persons. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 33. Interrogatories may be served only on a party to the litigation, and, for the purposes
of the instant case, this means that interrogatories should not be directed to persons or
organizations who are not named as Defendants. Interrogatories are not to contain more than
twenty-five (25) questions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). If Plaintiff wishes to propound more than
twenty-five (25) interrogatories to a party, Plaintiff must have permission of the Court. If
Plaintiff wishes to file a motion to compel, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, he
should first contact the attorneys for Defendants and try to work out the problem; if Plaintiff
proceeds with the motion to compel, he should also file a statement certifying that he has
contacted opposing counsel in a good faith effort to resolve any dispute about discovery. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(c); 37(a)(2)(A); Local Rule 26.7.
Plaintiff has the responsibility for maintaining his own records of the case. If Plaintiff
loses papers and needs new copies, he may obtain them from the Clerk of Court at the standard
cost of fifty cents ($.50) per page. If Plaintiff seeks copies, he should request them directly
from the Clerk of Court and is advised that the Court will authorize and require the
collection of fees from his prison trust fund account to pay the cost of the copies at the
aforementioned rate of fifty cents ($.50) per page.
If Plaintiff does not press his case forward, the court may dismiss it for want of
prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Local Rule 41.1.

11

It is Plaintiff’s duty to cooperate fully in any discovery which may be initiated by
Defendants. Upon no less than five (5) days’ notice of the scheduled deposition date, the
Plaintiff shall appear and permit his deposition to be taken and shall answer, under oath or
solemn affirmation, any question which seeks information relevant to the subject matter of the
pending action. Failing to answer questions at the deposition or giving evasive or incomplete
responses to questions will not be tolerated and may subject Plaintiff to severe sanctions,
including dismissal of this case.
As the case progresses, Plaintiff may receive a notice addressed to “counsel of record”
directing the parties to prepare and submit a Joint Status Report and a Proposed Pretrial Order.
A plaintiff proceeding without counsel may prepare and file a unilateral Status Report and is
required to prepare and file his own version of the Proposed Pretrial Order. A plaintiff who is
incarcerated shall not be required or entitled to attend any status or pretrial conference which
may be scheduled by the Court.
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS TO PLAINTIFF REGARDING
MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Under this Court’s Local Rules, a party opposing a motion to dismiss shall file and serve
his response to the motion within fourteen (14) days of its service. “Failure to respond shall
indicate that there is no opposition to a motion.” Local Rule 7.5. Therefore, if Plaintiff fails to
respond to a motion to dismiss, the Court will assume that he does not oppose the Defendants’
motion. Plaintiff’s case may be dismissed for lack of prosecution if Plaintiff fails to respond to a
motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff’s response to a motion for summary judgment must be filed within twentyone (21) days after service of the motion. Local Rules 7.5, 56.1. The failure to respond to such a
motion shall indicate that there is no opposition to the motion. Furthermore, each material fact

12

set forth in the Defendants’ statement of material facts will be deemed admitted unless
specifically controverted by an opposition statement. Should Defendants file a motion for
summary judgment, Plaintiff is advised that he will have the burden of establishing the existence
of a genuine dispute as to any material fact in this case. That burden cannot be carried by
reliance on the conclusory allegations contained within the complaint. Should the Defendants’
motion for summary judgment be supported by affidavit, Plaintiff must file counter-affidavits if
he desires to contest the Defendants’ statement of the facts. Should Plaintiff fail to file opposing
affidavits setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine dispute for trial, any factual
assertions made in Defendants’ affidavits will be accepted as true and summary judgment may
be entered against the Plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
SO ORDERED, this 17th day of December, 2015.

R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

13