Georgia Cases April 06, 2021: Upkins v. Coleman

Case Description

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff filed this action, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. This matter is before the Court for a frivolity screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons stated below, I RECOMMEND the Court DISMISS all claims for monetary damages against Defendants sued in their official capacities. However, I FIND that some of Plaintiff's claims may proceed. Specifically, the Court will direct service of the following claims by separate Order: due process claims under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, access to the courts claims under the First Amendment, and cruel and unusual punishment claims under the Eighth Amendment asserted against Defendants Coleman, Wicker, Toole, and Shephard.

Plaintiff's allegations surround his placement in some portion of the Tier program at Ware State Prison. Doc. 1. Plaintiff asserts he had all of his property taken away from him when placed in the program, which was never returned. Id. at 4, 13. Plaintiff claims his property

Page 2

included his legal work, which presumably related to a proceeding and motion pending at that time. Id. at 5, 13. Plaintiff states he was placed in a cell where he could not wipe himself after using the bathroom. Id. at 13. Plaintiff states he did not have any utensils to eat or drink with and the cell was filthy. Id. Plaintiff states Defendants Toole and Shephard chose him as a candidate to enter the program and have his property confiscated. Id. at 4. Plaintiff states Defendants Coleman and Wicker "initiated the action of locking down." Id.

A federal court is required to conduct an initial screening of all complaints filed by prisoners and plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis . 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a), 1915(a). During the initial screening, the court must identify any cognizable claims in the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Additionally, the court must dismiss the complaint (or any portion of the complaint) that is frivolous, 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. Id. 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). However, Plaintiff's unrepresented status will not excuse mistakes regarding procedural rules. McNeil v. United States , 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).

A claim is frivolous under § 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)). In order to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a complaint must contain "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)). To state a claim, a complaint must contain "more than

Page 3

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not" suffice. Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555.

Plaintiff states he sues all Defendants in both their individual and official capacities. Doc. 1 at 2-3. However, Plaintiff also sues for monetary damages. Id. at 5-6. 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 agency or a state officer in their official capacity is "no different from a suit against the [s]tate itself," such defendants are immune from suit under § 1983. Id. at 71. Therefore, I RECOMMEND the Court DISMISS all claims for monetary damages against Defendants sued in their official capacities.

For the reasons set forth above, I RECOMMEND the Court DISMISS the following portions of Plaintiff's Complaint: all claims for monetary damages against Defendants sued in their official capacities.

Any objections to this Report and Recommendation shall be filed within 14 days of today's date. Objections shall be specific and in writing. Any objection that the Magistrate Judge failed to address a contention raised in the Complaint must be included. Failure to file timely, written objections will bar any later challenge or review of the Magistrate Judge's factual findings and legal conclusions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Harrigan v. Metro Dade Police Dep't Station #4 , 977 F.3d 1185, 1192-93 (11th Cir. 2020). To be clear, a party waives all rights to

Page 4

challenge the Magistrate Judge's factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal by failing to file timely, written objections. Harrigan , 977 F.3d at 1192-93; 11th Cir. R. 3-1. A copy of the objections must be served upon all other parties to the action.

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.

SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED , this 6th day of April, 2021.

/s/ _________
BENJAMIN W. CHEESBRO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA