Maynard v. Hale et al

Filing 25

ORDER: The Magistrate Judge's 20 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED insofar as it recommends the claims against the individual defts be dismissed, but REJECTED insofar as it recommends that said dismissal be with prejudice. Defts' 12 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Within 20 days of entry of this Order, pltf shall file an Amended Complaint in which he sets forth specific allegations as to each deft relating to his or her personal involvement in the events giving rise to this lawsuit. This case is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further case management. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 6/1/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(rd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
DUSTON DEAN MAYNARD,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
PAM HALE, BRUCE HELMS, JESSIE )
OLIVER, BARBARA JACKSON,
)
LYNETTE GAVIN, and PATRICIA
)
PATTERSON,
)
)
Defendants.
)

No. 3:11-1233
Judge Sharp

ORDER
This is a pro se prisoner action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which Plaintiff Duston Dean
Maynard claims that Defendants violated his right to practice his Muslim faith. Specifically, he
alleges that Defendants failed to provide him with pre-dawn and post-sunset meals, so that he could
observe Ramadan – the annual month of fasting – which began on August 1, 2011.
The Magistrate Judge has entered a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Docket No. 20)
in which he recommends that the Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 12) filed by Defendants Pam Hale,
Chaplain Bruce Helms, Jesse Oliver, Barbara Jackson, and Patricia Patterson be granted, and that
this case be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff has filed Objections to the R & R (Docket No. 23).
Because the R & R relates to a dispositive motion, this Court’s review is de novo. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Having undertaken that review, and having considered the arguments of the
parties, the Court concludes that, when the allegations in the Complaint are accepted as true and all
reasonable inferences are drawn in Plaintiff’s favor as required by Rule 12(b)(6), DirecTv, Inc. v.
Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007), the Complaint as presently formulated fails to state a
1

claim against any of the named Defendants. However, the Court also finds that Plaintiff may be able
to articulate allegations against one or more of the defendants that “raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007).
The present Complaint was drafted by a pro se litigant, who, presumably untrained in the
law, is afforded “‘careful protection where highly technical requirements are involved, especially
when enforcing those requirements might result in a loss of the opportunity to prosecute . . . a
lawsuit on the merits.’” Brown v. Matausak, 415 Fed. Appx. 608, 616 (6th Cir. 2011). In most cases,
the better practice is to allow a pro se litigant an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure pleading
deficiencies before a dismissal, id., and that is the course the Court will follow here.
Turning to the specific allegations in the Complaint, the Magistrate Judge notes that
“Plaintiff makes no factual allegations against the Defendants Gavin, Patterson, Jackson and Oliver,
and his complaint against them is subject to dismissal on that ground alone.” (Docket No. 20 at 7).
This Court agrees with that observation because the Complaint merely alleges that those Defendants
“are all the Administration,” and are “Case Managers.” (Docket No. 1 at 3 & 4). However, rather
than dismissing the clams against those Defendants with prejudice, Plaintiff will be afforded an
opportunity to amend his Complaint, particularly since the case is in its early stages.
As for Defendant Hale, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal because the allegations
against her are that she responded to Plaintiff’s grievance, told him he was on the Ramadan list, and
the “mere fact that the Plaintiff feels that a response was inadequate does not state a Constitutional
claim.” (Docket No. 20 at 7, citing, George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2009) & Rogers
v. Parker, 2008 WL 4138175 at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 2, 2008)). This is a correct statement of the
law and supported by the cases cited in the R &R, but, again, Plaintiff should be afforded the

2

opportunity to amend his Complaint to allege additional facts, if warranted, against Defendant Hale.
With regard to Defendant Helms, the Magistrate Judge found that the allegations were
insufficient to state a claim under § 1983 because, according to the Complaint, when Plaintiff
complained about not being on the Ramadan list, Chaplain Helms placed him on the list and told
Plaintiff to let him know if he had any further problems. Such allegations do not suggest “that
Chaplain [Helms] deprived him of his First Amendment to practice his religion” as is required “[t]o
prevail on his § 1983.” Calvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 290 (6th Cir. 2010). That said, it could be
that Plaintiff has other facts to support his claim against Chaplain Helms, and he will be allowed to
amend his Complaint to make such allegations if warranted.
Finally, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal because Plaintiff’s allegations “appear”
to be a classic description of a snafu:
Taking the Plaintiff’s complaint in a light most favorable to him, he does
allege that there were errors in providing him proper Ramadan meals on August 1,
4, 5, 7, 8, and 15. However, the failure appears to be from bureaucratic errors in the
preparation of the Ramadan list and in the preparation of meals by the food service
employees. While certainly not being provided a proper meal is unpleasant, the
Plaintiff does not allege that he was not able to practice his religion properly as he
states that he did fast as required by his religious belief. A short-term and sporadic
disruption of his Ramadan eating habits does not, under these circumstances, allege
a substantial burden on his religious freedom. See Kennedy v. Boardman, 91 F.3d
30, 33 (7th Cir. 1996). This is particularly true when it appears that the failure to
properly serve the Plaintiff a predawn meal and a double portion evening meal was
the result of bureaucratic bungling rather than a deliberate act by any of the named
Defendants in this matter.
(Docket No. 20 at 8).
The failure to provide Plaintiff proper meals during Ramadan may very well have been the
result of “bureaucratic errors” and/or a “bureaucratic bungling.” However, that is something which
cannot be determined merely on the basis of the pleadings, but, instead, is something which needs

3

to be developed should Plaintiff articulate facts which suggest personal liability on behalf of one or
more of the named Defendants. Likewise, it could turn out that the meal deprivations were “shortterm and sporadic,” but, again, that is something which needs to be fleshed-out, particularly since
Plaintiff alleges in his Objections that he went “days without food,” resulting in “a tremendous
amount of pain and suffering.”

Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 290 (6th Cir. 2010) (citation

omitted) (“This court has previously held that ‘prison administrators must provide an adequate diet
without violating the inmate's religious dietary restrictions’”).
Accordingly, the Court enters the following rulings:
(1) The R & R (Docket No. 20) is ACCEPTED insofar as it recommends that the claims
against the individual Defendants be dismissed, but REJECTED insofar as it recommends that said
dismissal be with prejudice;
(2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 12) is hereby GRANTED and the Complaint
is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
(3) Within twenty-days (20) of the date of entry of this Order, Plaintiff shall file an Amended
Complaint in which he sets forth specific allegations as to each Defendant relating to his or her
personal involvement in the events giving rise to this lawsuit. Plaintiff is hereby CAUTIONED that
any such allegations must be made in good faith, and is also CAUTIONED that the failure to file
an Amended Complaint will result in dismissal of this action with prejudice; and
(4) The foregoing rulings are without prejudice to Defendants filing a Motion to Dismiss or
a Motion for Summary directed at any Amended Complaint which the Plaintiff may file, and without
prejudice to Defendants filing a renewed Motion to Dismiss or a Motion for Summary Judgment
should Plaintiff fail to file an Amended Complaint.

4

This case is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge for further case management.
It is SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5