Clayton v. Williams et al

Filing 10

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge that the Court DISMSS without prejudice Plaintiff's 9 Amended Complaint, and DIRECT the Clerk to CLOSE this case. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Court DENY Plaintiff leave to appeal in fo rma pauperis. The Court ORDERS any party seeking to object to this Report and Recommendation 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 11/13/2017). ORDER directing service of the REPORT AND RECOMMEDATION of the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 10/27/2017. (ca)

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

EARNEST BARNARD CLAYTON,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:17-cv-70

v.
STANLEY WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER and MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Georgia State Prison (“GSP”) in Reidsville,
Georgia, submitted a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contesting certain conditions of his
confinement. (Doc. 1.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to amend his Complaint before frivolity
review, (doc. 8), and Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended Complaint, (doc. 11). For the
reasons set forth below, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS without prejudice
Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to follow this Court’s Order and failure to state a claim, and
DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case. Additionally, I RECOMMEND the Court
DENY Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his original Complaint, along with a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis,
on May 15, 2017. (Docs. 1, 2.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion, but before conducting the
requisite frivolity review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), the Court directed Plaintiff to amend his
Complaint. (Doc. 8.) The Court informed Plaintiff that “in its current form [his Complaint] fails
to state a viable claim and is due to be dismissed.” (Id. at p. 4.) Furthermore, the Court advised

Plaintiff that his Complaint was an impermissible “shotgun pleading” and warned him that he
“may not join unrelated claims and various defendants unless the claims ‘arise out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.” (Id. at pp. 3–4.) Additionally,
the Court directed Plaintiff to follow a detailed list of specific instructions on how to properly
draft his Amended Complaint. (Id. at pp. 4–5.)
Plaintiff timely filed an Amended Complaint on July 21, 2017. (Doc. 9.) However,
while his attachments were limited to the appropriate number of pages, Plaintiff failed to heed
the Court’s other specific instructions and submitted yet another shotgun pleading. Further,
Plaintiff still fails to limit his claims to those arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or
series of transactions or occurrences. Plaintiff includes: details concerning the cell conditions in
the K-2 building at GSP, (id. at pp. 13–16, 18–20); 1 several allegations about his cell conditions
in the G-4 building at GSP, (id. at p. 19–20); 2 and various failure to protect claims, deliberate
indifference to medical needs claims, excessive force claims, retaliation claims related to his
grievance filings, and First Amendment claims, (id. at pp. 14–15, 18–21).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff seeks to bring this action in forma pauperis. 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, 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. §§

1

While Plaintiff primarily complains about the sanitary conditions of Cell-5 in dorm K-2, he also
complains about safety threats from cellmates during his time in Cell-18 in dorm K-2, (doc. 9, p. 20).
2

Plaintiff complains about the conditions of multiple cells in dorm G-4, including Cell-9 and Cell-23.

2

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, 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).
The Court looks to the instructions for pleading contained in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure when reviewing a Complaint on an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See
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

3

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[.]”) (quoting Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160
(11th Cir. 2003)). However, Plaintiff’s unrepresented status will not excuse 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.

Dismissal for Failure to Follow this Court’s Orders
This Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to amend his Complaint and provided

detailed instructions as to how Plaintiff could amend to properly state a claim. Plaintiff was
cautioned that his failure to file an appropriate Amended Complaint will result in “[dismissal for]
failure to follow a court order.”

(Doc. 8, p. 5.)

Plaintiff, however, ignored the Court’s

instructions and instead re-submitted a Complaint materially similar to his original filing.
Specifically, Plaintiff failed to follow this Court’s orders to: “(1) draft his Amended
Complaint on the [provided] complaint form”; “(4) write legibly”; “(7) only assert claims that
arose from the same transaction or occurrence or series of related transactions or occurrences”;
“(8) clearly identify each defendant responsible for each alleged violation”; “(9) omit all legal
argument or conclusions”; “(10) provide complete information on the administrative relief []
pursued”; and “(11) provide detailed information on all prisoner civil actions [] filed.” (Id. at pp.
4

4–5.) In turn, Plaintiff: (1) negligibly drafted his Amended Complaint on the required form,
(doc. 9, pp. 3–5); (4) wrote in illegible handwriting, (doc. 9); (7) asserted several unrelated
claims, (id. at pp. 12–21); (8) named Defendants without including any corresponding factual
allegations and frequently listed over a dozen Defendants at once, simply stating that they knew
of or observed the various alleged violations committed against him, (id. at pp. 12, 14–19); (9)
included incoherent legalese and numerous legal conclusions, (id. at pp. 13–21); (10) provided
incomplete information regarding the administrative relief he pursued, leaving some form
sections entirely blank, (id. at pp. 6–8); and (11) included no information whatsoever regarding
his prison litigation history, (id. at pp. 8–10).
In sum, Plaintiff failed to heed this Court’s detailed Order and submitted an Amended
Complaint that is drafted in a disorganized, repetitive fashion replete with conclusory allegations
and unwarranted legalese. Where such failure occurs, a district court may dismiss a plaintiff’s
claims sua sponte pursuant to either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (“Rule 41(b)”) or the
court’s inherent authority to manage its docket. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31
(1962); Coleman v. St. Lucie Cty. Jail, 433 F. App’x 716, 718 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b) and Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir.
2005)). In particular, Rule 41(b) allows for the involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s claims
where he has failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court order, or local
rules. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Coleman, 433 F. App’x at 718; Sanders v. Barrett, No. 0512660, 2005 WL 2640979, at *1 (11th Cir. Oct. 17, 2005) (citing Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189,
192 (11th Cir. 1993)); cf. Local R. 41.1(b) (“[T]he assigned Judge may, after notice to counsel of
record, sua sponte . . . dismiss any action . . . with or without prejudice [for] willful disobedience
or neglect of any order of the Court.”). Additionally, a district court’s “power to dismiss is an

5

inherent aspect of its authority to enforce its orders and ensure prompt disposition of lawsuits.”
Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Jones v.
Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983)).
It is true that dismissal with prejudice for failure to follow court orders is a “sanction . . .
applicable only in extreme circumstances” and requires that a court “(1) [make] a clear record of
willful conduct and (2) a finding that lesser sanctions are inadequate.” Baltimore v. Jim Burke
Motors, Auto., 300 F. App'x 703, 707 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (citing Betty K Agencies,
Ltd., 432 F.3d at 1339 and quoting Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985)).
see also McIntosh v. Gauthier, 182 F. App’x 884, 886–87 (11th Cir. 2006) (same) (citing
McKelvey v. AT&T Techs., Inc., 789 F.2d 1518, 1520).

By contrast, dismissal without

prejudice for failure to follow a court order is not an adjudication on the merits, and, therefore,
courts are afforded greater discretion in dismissing claims in this manner.

See Taylor v.

Spaziano, 251 F. App’x 616, 619 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (providing that
an involuntary dismissal for failure to comply with a court order is an adjudication on the merits,
unless the district court "states otherwise"); Brown, 205 F. App’x at 802 (noting that dismissal
without prejudice under Rule 41(b) is generally not an abuse of discretion).
While the Court exercises its discretion to dismiss cases with caution, dismissal of this
action without prejudice is warranted. In light of Plaintiff’s extensive disregard for this Court’s
Order, as discussed at length above, a lesser sanction would not suffice. See Brown, 205 F.
App’x at 802– 03 (upholding dismissal without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s
order, where plaintiff did not follow the court’s specific instructions when given the opportunity
to amend his complaint and court had informed plaintiff that noncompliance could lead to
dismissal); see also Taylor, 251 F. App’x at 620–21 (upholding dismissal without prejudice for

6

failure to follow a court order and for failure to prosecute, where plaintiffs failed to follow the
court’s specific instructions on how to amend their deficient complaint, instead submitting an
amended complaint that contained the same deficiencies as the original); cf. Moon v. Newsome,
863 F.2d 835, 837–39 (11th Cir. 1989) (upholding dismissal with prejudice for failure to follow a
court order of a pro se plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim, where plaintiff, proceeding in forma
pauperis, failed to follow a discovery order and refused to comply with a sanctions order).
The Court warned Plaintiff in its Order that if he “should [] fail to abide by this directive,
the Court will dismiss this case for [] failure to follow a court order.”

(Doc. 8, p. 5.)

Consequently, the Court should DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiff’s Complaint, as
amended, for failure to follow this Court’s Order.
II.

Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim
Moreover, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is still a “shotgun pleading” that is unclear as

to which facts are “material to the particular cause of action asserted.” Beckwith v. Bellsouth
Telecomms. Inc., 146 F. App’x 368, 372 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Strategic Income Fund,
L.L.C. v. Spear, 305 F.3d 1293, 1295 n.9 (11th Cir. 2002)). The Eleventh Circuit has routinely
and explicitly condemned “shotgun pleadings.” Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516
F.3d 955, 979 n.54 (11th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is drafted such that it is
“virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended to support which claim(s)
for relief.” Strategic Income Fund, LLC, 305 F.3d at 1295 n.9 (citation omitted). A district
court is not required to “sift through the facts presented and decide for itself which were material
to the particular cause of action asserted.” Beckwith, 146 F. App’x at 372 (citation omitted).
Despite the Court specifically reminding Plaintiff that he can “only assert claims that arose from
the same transaction or occurrence or series of related transactions or occurrences,” Plaintiff has

7

failed to follow this directive and attempts to do the very same with his Amended Complaint.
(Doc. 8, p. 4 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)).) Plaintiff includes: details concerning the cell
conditions in the K-2 building at GSP, (id. at pp. 13–16, 18–20); 3 several allegations about his
cell conditions in the G-4 building at GSP, (id. at p. 19–20); 4 and various failure to protect
claims, deliberate indifference to medical needs claims, excessive force claims, retaliation claims
related to his grievance filings, and First Amendment claims, (id. at pp. 14–15, 18–21).
Therefore, because Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is haphazardly pled with unrelated claims
arising from unrelated occurrences, it fails to state a viable claim and should be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Court should DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiff’s case not only for
failure to follow this Court’s Order, but also for failure to state a claim under the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. See Smith v. Owens, 625 F. App’x 924, 928 (11th Cir. 2015) (upholding this
Court’s dismissal for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)).
III.

Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis
The Court should also deny Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. 5

Though

Plaintiff has, of course, not yet filed a notice of appeal, it would be appropriate to address these
issues in the Court’s order of dismissal. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3) (trial court may certify that
appeal is not taken in good faith “before or after the notice of appeal is filed”).
An appeal cannot be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that the appeal is
not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). Good faith in this
context must be judged by an objective standard. Busch v. Cty. of Volusia, 189 F.R.D. 687, 691

3

While Plaintiff primarily complains about the sanitary conditions of Cell-5 in dorm K-2, he also
complains about safety threats from cellmates during his time in Cell-18 in dorm K-2, (doc. 9, p. 20).
4

Plaintiff complains about the conditions of multiple cells in dorm G-4, including Cell-9 and Cell-23.

5

A certificate of appealability is not required in this Section 1983 action.

8

(M.D. Fla. 1999). A party does not proceed in good faith when he seeks to advance a frivolous
claim or argument. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). A claim or
argument is frivolous when it appears the factual allegations are clearly baseless or the legal
theories are indisputably meritless. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Carroll v.
Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993). Stated another way, an in forma pauperis action is
frivolous, and thus, not brought in good faith, if it is “without arguable merit either in law or
fact.” Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002); see also Brown v. United States,
Nos. 407CV085, 403CR001, 2009 WL 307872, at *1–2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2009).
Based on the above analysis of Plaintiff’s action, there are no non-frivolous issues to
raise on appeal, and an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Thus, the Court should DENY
Plaintiff in forma pauperis status on appeal.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS without
prejudice Plaintiff’s Complaint, and DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case.
Additionally, I RECOMMEND the Court DENY Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
The Court ORDERS any party seeking to object to this Report and Recommendation 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.

9

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 Court DIRECTS the Clerk of
Court to serve a copy of this Report and Recommendation upon the Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED and REPORTED and RECOMMENDED, this 27th day of October,
2017.

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

10