Winstead v. Williams et al

Filing 10

ORDER granting Defendant's 5 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. This case stands closed. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 01/09/2018. (jlh)

IN THE UNITED

FOR THE

STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

CAROL WINSTEAD,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

*

CV

617-049

*

WARDEN STANLEY WILLIAMS,
VALDERINE JACKSON, and WARDEN
MARTY ALLEN,

*
*
*

Defendants.

*

ORDER

Plaintiff
action
and

against

Marty

Before

Carol

Defendants

Allen

the

Winstead

Court

for

brought

Stanley

deliberate

is

Defendants'

this

42

Williams,

Valderine

indifference
motion

to

U.S.C.

and

and

Defendants

Accordingly,

filed

the motion has

a

reply

in

1983

Jackson,

retaliation.

dismiss.

(Doc.

Plaintiff filed a response and sur reply in opposition
9),

§

(docs.

support.

(Doc.

been fully briefed and is

5.)

6,
8.)

ripe

for

Prison

in

review.

I.

Plaintiff

Reidsville,

was

a

Georgia.

BACKGROUND

prisoner

at

Georgia

(Compl., Doc. 1,

II 1. )

State

On April 27, 2016,

Plaintiff filed a grievance with Defendant Jackson asking to be
moved

to

a

different

cell

"citing

problems

with

his

sexually

violent

and threatening roommate."

(Compl.

SI

7.)

Plaintiff's

grievance was denied and on June 8, 2016, Plaintiff was sexually
assaulted by his cellmate.

The

assault

Corrections

("PREA"),

was

(Id.)

investigated by

("GDOC")

June

34 U.S.C.

9,

Prison,
sexual

2016,

§ 30302.

(IdJ

of

Plaintiff

(Doc.

was

6, at

2;

transferred

to

Doc.

9, at

Telfair

3)

State

which Plaintiff claims was punishment for reporting the
assault.

(Compl.

On April 13,
Defendants.

2017,

Plaintiff

Jackson's

failure

demonstrated

a

Additionally,
transfer

for

Department

Plaintiff allegedly filed

S[

9.)

Plaintiff

protesting his transfer on November 23,

to

Georgia

pursuant to the Prison Rape Elimination Act

grievances concerning the attack.
On

the

to

Plaintiff

Plaintiff's

to

2016.

claims

that

transfer

indifference

asserts

that

Telfair

grievances,

to

and

a

Prison

therefore

5-4,

at 2.)

Williams

different

to

Defendant

State

grievance

action against

Defendants

him

a

(Doc.

Plaintiff initiated this

deliberate

Plaintiff

filed

his

in

cell

safety.

Allen's

was

and

decision

retaliation

violated

his

("PLRA"),

42

First

Amendment rights.

II.

STANDARD
i

A.

Failure

to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

Under the

§

1997e,

a

Prison Litigation Reform Act

prisoner

must

exhaust

all

administrative

U.S.C.

remedies

before

filing

an

action

challenging

confinement.

42 U.S.C.

a prisoner to

comply with the procedural

grievance process.

a

prisoner

remedies,
F.3d 1152,

to

properly

(11th Cir.

rules

548 U.S.

exhaust

claim will be dismissed.

1159

conditions

of

his

Proper exhaustion requires

Woodford v. Ngo,

fails

his

§ 1997e(a).

the

of

81,

his

93

his

prison's

(2006).

If

administrative

Johnson v.

Meadows,

418

2005).

While a motion to dismiss is normally confined to the four
corners of
ensure

that

exhausted

F.3d

a complaint,

motion
as

to

true

court

dispute.

the

42

U.S.C.

remedies.

2008).

Burnside,

must

the

541

court

takes

if

§

Bryant

This
F.3d

those

decides

Id.

1997e

v.

have

Rich,

involves

1077,

If
make

the

the

a

1082

facts

plaintiff's

specific

plaintiff's

530

two-step

(11th

Cir.

findings

has

exhausted

inquiry,

plaintiff

administrative

his

to

has

remedies.

failed
Id.

survives
resolve

bears
to

proper

step

any

one,

factual

under those findings,

administrative

the defendant

allegations

demonstrate

claim

The court then decides whether,

plaintiff

a

Cir.

under

if the defendant alleges conflicting facts in his

and

During this
that

v.

dismiss,

exhaustion.
the

(11th

Turner

First,

suing

administrative

1374

process.

2008).

plaintiffs

their

1368,

the court may decide factual matters to

remedies.

the burden of

exhaust

his

Id.

proving

available

B.

Motion

to Dismiss

Federal

Rule

plaintiff's

of

complaint

Civil

Procedure

contain

"a

8(a)

short

and

requires

a

statement

plain

that

of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
R.

Civ.

P.

8(a)(2).

To

survive

a

motion

to

to state a claim upon which relief can be
must

include

enough

"factual

allegations

dismiss

granted,
to

for

Fed.

failure

a complaint

raise

a

right

to

relief above the speculative level," and those facts must "state

a

claim to

Corp.

v.

relief

Twombly,

complaint

formulaic

not

by

than

at

an

accusation."

plausible

U.S.
a

detailed

544,
Rule

of

than
the

555.

The

unadorned,
Ashcroft

(quoting Twombly,

v.

550 U.S.

on

545,

its

570

12(b)(6)

factual

more

recitation

Id.

is

by

"requires

do."

more

550

attacked

buttressed
pleading

that

face."

(2007).

elements

Rule

8

and
of

a

need

the

not

pleading

of

however,

"unless

plaintiff can prove no

be

and

action

standard

a

will

"demands

the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
Iqbal,

556

U.S.

662,

678

(2009)

at 555).

A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to
claim,

a

plaintiff's

conclusions,
cause

Atl.

Although

motion

allegations,

labels

Bell

it

appears

beyond

set of circumstances

a

doubt

state a

that

the

that would entitle

i

him to

relief."

Conley v.

see also Robinson v.

Gibson,

United States,

355

U.S.

41,

45-46

484 F. App'x 421,

(1957);

423

(11th

Cir. 2012) (quoting Lopez v. First Union Nat'1 Bank of Fla., 129

F.3d 1186,
accept

all

as

1189

(11th Cir.

true

all

reasonable

plaintiff.

(11th

facts

2009)

F.3d 1250,

1262

At

alleged in

inferences

Belanger

Cir.

1997)).

v.

in

the

(11th Cir.

the

light

Salvation

(citing

this

Jackson

courts must

complaint

most

Army,

v.

stage,

and construe

favorable

556

F.3d

BellSouth

to

1153,

the
1155

Telecomm.,

372

2004)).

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Proper Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
1.

Plaintiff's

Plaintiff
June

23,

("SOP")
within

claims

2016.

filed

While

IIB05-0001
ten

he

days

Sexual

of

the

a

GDOC's

normally

Assault

sexual

assault

Standard

sexual

Additionally,

grievance

Operating

requires jgrievances

incident,

not have a time limit.1

Grievance

assault

on

Procedure

to

be

filed

grievances

do

the SOP provides that

"[i]f an offender files a grievance involving sexual assault . .
. such actions automatically end the grievance process."
Plaintiff's

grievance

sexual

ended

assault

the

grievance

grievance

was

process,

timely

and

Plaintiff

Since

filing

has

the

alleged

proper exhaustion.

However,
for

1

the

first

Plaintiff's
time

in

June

his

23,

2016,

sur-reply.

grievance
The

was

Complaint,

raised
on

the

Although this is not directly stated in the SOP, GDOC Policy Number 208.06

adopts the standards found at 28 C.F.R.
§ 115.
Under 28 C.F.R.
115.52(b)(1), sexual assault grievances are not subject to a time limit.

§

other

hand,

2016.

only

identifies

filings

not

April

27

and

June

9,

Normally, a plaintiff may not make factual allegations in
Hulls v. Llabona,

a reply to a motion to dismiss.
830,

on

832

n.5

objected

considering
Advanced

(11th

to

Cir.

these

facts

1996);

at

2011).

Plaintiff's

Estimating

Cir.

339781,

(11th

*5

Royal

(S.D.

prejudice

v.

and

cause

Inc.

v.

Riney,

York

Jan.

26,

sur reply,

Defendants,

Defendants

there

unfair

New

Ga.

submitted new evidence on

necessarily

filing

will

Sys.,

Nevertheless,

is

no

have

sign

that

prejudice.

77

Life

437 F. App'x

F.3d

Ins.

2015)

See

1322,

Co.,

1325

2015

(NX[T]hough

WL

Royal

such new evidence does not

as

t;hey

were

free

their intent to file an additional sur reply.")
Court will consider the facts alleged in

to

notice

Therefore,

Plaintiff's

the

sur-reply.

Since Defendants have not challenged the sufficiency of the June
23,

that

2016

filing,

Plaintiff

remedies.2

Defendants

did

not

Accordingly,

have

failed

properly

to

exhaust

Defendants'

meet

his

motion

their

burden

administrative

to

dismiss

for

improper exhaustion is denied.

2.

Defendants

P l a i n t i f f ' s Retaliation

also

argue

that

Grievance

Plaintiff

did

not

exhaust

the

administrative remedies available for his retaliation complaint.

Plaintiff

admits

that

although

he

was

transferred

on

June

9,

2 The Court need not consider the sufficiency of Plaintiff's April 27 and June
9 sexual assault grievances with respect to proper exhaustion.

2016,

he did not file a grievance protesting that transfer until

November

23,

2016.

(Winstead

previously mentioned,
have

ten

filed

days

well

to

Doc.

6,

at

17.)

As

the SOP generally provides that prisoners

file

a

grievance.

this

beyond

offered no

Decl.,

deadline.

explanation

for

why his

Plaintiff's

grievance

Additionally,

grievance

was

was

Plaintiff

untimely.

A

!

plaintiff

does

not meet

the proper

exhaustion

standard when he

fails to offer good cause for an untimely complaint.
Donald,

211

taking

F.

App'x.

Plaintiff's

properly

exhaust

Defendants'

861

allegations
his

motion

859,

to

(11th

as

true,

administrative
dismiss

Cir.

2006).

Isaac v.
Thus,

Plaintiff

remedies.

Plaintiff's

even

failed

to

Accordingly,

retaliation

claim

is

granted.

By

filing

Plaintiff
respect

a

properly

to

his

Plaintiff s

after

he

to

properly

was

exhausted

exhaust

good

the

retaliation complaint.

to

cause

his

grievance

claim
Telfair

for

on

June

administrative

indifference

retaliation

transferred

offer

assault

deliberate

hand,

failed

sexual

his

administrative

was

claim.
not

State

filed
Prison.

23,

2016,

remedies
On

the

until

with
other

months

Because

he

delay,

Plaintiff

did

not

remedies

available

for

his

B.

Deliberate

Indifference

Plaintiff
different

cell,

deliberate

that

failure

infliction

by

Defendants

indifference

official's

an

claims

of

to

Williams

to

act

cruel

failing

to
and

Plaintiff's

in

certain

and

transfer
Jackson

safety.

can

punishment.

to

acted

"[A]

circumstances

unusual

him

with

prison

amount

An

a

to

official's

deliberate indifference to a known danger violates a prisoner's
Eighth Amendment
(11th Cir.1995)

97

S.Ct.

rights."

McCoy

v.

Webster,

(citing Estelle v. Gamble,

285,

50

L.Ed.2d

251

47

429 U.S.

(1976)).

An

risk

of

serious

harm;

deliberately indifferent to that risk;

causes
1325,

the

plaintiff's

1332

The

(11th Cir.

first

injury.

1014,

element--a

1028

defendant's

objective

subjective

508

harm.

Id.

The

Goodman v.

Amendment

defendant

is

that indifference

Kimbrough,

718

2001).

component.

F.3d 611,

617

The

second

to

that

Rodriguez

(11th Cir.

a plaintiff must

knowledge of

objective

serious

Marsh v. Butler Cnty.,

indifference

component,

defendant had actual

(3)

104-05,

(1) there is a

the

substantial jrisk of

Cir.

subjective

Dep't of Corr.,
the

(11th

deliberate

and

and

97,

407

F.3d

2013).

employs an objective standard.
F.3d

(2)

404,

Eighth

violation for deliberate indifference occurs when
substantial

F.3d

8

Ala.,

asks

risk—has

v.

2007).

Sec'y

an

for

To satisfy

demonstrate

whether

268

element—the

a substantial risk of

component

harm-

that

the

serious

the defendant

disregarded the risk by reacting in an unreasonable manner.

Id.

The

has

third

alleged

a

element—causation—asks
link
risk

excessive

between
of

a

whether

defendant's

violence,

and

a

act

50

F.3d 1579,

1585

(11th Cir.

or

link

violence and the plaintiff's injury.

a

Jackson

do

not

substantial harm.

Cir.

1983)

debate

in

the

the

risk

of

1995).

the

the

and

Hale v. Tallapoosa Cnty.,

existence

context

of

Defendants Williams

of

See McFadden v. Lucas,

(noting

omission

between

Given the violent assault on Plaintiff,
and

plaintiff

a

a

serious

threat

713 F.2d 143,

§

1983

146

action

of

(5th

that

an

allegation of an unjustified serious physical assault against a

prisoner

raises

objective
Williams

an

component
and

was

that

of

Jackson

Defendants Williams
risk

arguable

faced

the

do

not

second

Amendment
element,

contest,

is

their

Furthermore,

failure

also

to

Defendants

claim).

which

and Jackson had subjective

Plaintiff,

unreasonable.

Eighth

The

Defendants

satisfied.

knowledge of

minimize

Williams

that

and

If

the
risk

Jackson

do not dispute that if they had subjective knowledge of the risk
Plaintiff faced,

causation is satisfied.

Nevertheless,

the

subjective

Defendants

component

of

Williams

the

and

second

Jackson

element

argue

has

not

that

been

satisfied.

Plaintiff claims he filed a grievance with Defendant

Jackson

April

on

27,

2016,

which

"cit[ed]

problems

with

his

sexually

violent

and

threatening

However,

the April 27 grievance,

response

to

his

Defendants'

cellmate's

motion

sexually

Plaintiff told Defendant

I

need

to

be

roommate."

(Compl.

to

dismiss,

violent

makes

no

warnings

satisfy

the

of

of

proclivities.3

of

Instead,

Jackson:

moved

a

to

a

one man

prisoner's

subjective

action.

(11th Cir.

mention

cell

....

of
to
me
I
of
6,

A.)

General

cause

7.)

which Plaintiff attached to his

I am always having problems with a lot
people in the dorm period. I don't want
go to the hole . . . .
Please move
A.S.A.P. before I get in trouble . . . .
keep getting roommates that I have a lot
trouble with. I want to go home.
(Doc.
Ex.

5

2006)

component

McBride

v.

problematic

of

a

Rivers,

nature

deliberate

170

F.

do

not

indifference

App'x

648,

654-55

(finding that NMme and that dude had problems.

Ifm in fear for my life. Don't put me in the cell with him'

. .

I

.

did

not

identify

a

specific

defendant could infer that a
Carter

Like

v.

the

Galloway,

prisoner

352

in

incident,

from

which

substantial risk existed.")

F.3d

1346,

McBride,

"always having problems with

3

prior

1349-50

Plaintiff's

[his]

(11th

warning

Cir.

that

roommate" did not

the

(citing
2003)).

he

was

identify a

A document attached to a response may be considered without conversion to

summary judgment if the document is: (1) central to the plaintiff's claim;
and (2) undisputed.
Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1134 (11th Cir. 2002)
(citing Harris v. Ivax Corp., 182 F.3d 799, 802 n.2
(11th Cir. 1999)).
Whether Plaintiff's grievance gave notice to Defendants Williams and Jackson
is central to the deliberate indifference claim and neither party disputes

its

authenticity.

Thus,

the

grievance

conversion to summary judgment.
10

is

properly

considered

without

particular threat that would put Defendants on notice.
Ex.

A.)

in

Moreover,

fear

for

Defendants
risk of

deliberate

safety.

Williams

and

harm,

Thus,

Jackson

Plaintiff

had

and therefore

failed to

would

Defendants

Williams

Williams

to

to

allege

knowledge

state

a

of

a

claim for

indifference.

grievance

knowledge

failed

subjective
fails

Plaintiff's
that

6,

Plaintiff failed to even indicate that he was

his

serious

(Doc.

show
of

and

a

risk

of

Jackson's

serious

motion

to

identify a particular risk
and

Jackson

harm.
dismiss

had

subjective

Therefore,

Defendants

Plaintiff's

deliberate

indifference claim is granted.

IV.

Upon

due

foregoing,

IT

consideration
IS

HEREBY

DIRECTED to CLOSE

January,

this

ENTERED

and

(doc.

in

accordance

that

ORDERED

dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint

ORDER

CONCLUSION

Defendants'

5) is GRANTED.

with
motion

the
to

The Clerk is

case.

at

Augusta,

Georgia,

us
this

I
/

day

2018.

J. RANDAL HALK,

KHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
"3UUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

11

of