United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
MORALES HOWARD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Edward Maynor, an inmate of the Florida penal system,
initiated this action on June 15, 2018, by filing a document
titled “Declaration of Edward Maynor, ” in which
he seeks entry of a preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order (Doc. 1; Motion). In support of his Motion,
Maynor also filed the declaration of another inmate, Harry
Davis (Doc. 2). Maynor captions his Motion with a case style
in which he names as defendants the Warden of Florida State
Prison, Sgt. Lavoie, and six un-named individuals: a
lieutenant, four officers, and a nurse.
Motion, Maynor asserts that Lavoie and two unknown officers
entered his cell on May 20, 2018, and beat him until he lost
and regained consciousness. Motion at 1-2. According to
Maynor, after the beating, the officers brought him to see a
nurse, not in the medical unit, but rather in a “group
room.” The nurse provided no treatment and only
conducted a cursory examination. Id. at 3. At 1:20
a.m. the next day, Maynor sought emergency medical treatment
because he was in extreme pain, but the officers who escorted
him to the medical unit threatened and beat him, forcing him
to say that he “no longer needed the medical
emergency.” Id. at 4. In the medical unit,
Maynor saw the same nurse as the day before, and she again
refused to treat him even though she “witnessed and
observed what was going on.” Id. After the
nurse left, the officers continued beating Maynor.
states that, following the May 20, 2018 incident, Lavoie
falsely reported that the “use of force” resulted
from Maynor's attempt to spit on Lavoie. Id. at
5. He alleges that the outcome of a resulting disciplinary
hearing was unfavorable to him, asserting that the
investigator's review of the video footage did not
support his allegations. Id. at 6. In addition to
the individual abuse Maynor claims to have suffered at the
hands of Lavoie, Maynor asserts that Lavoie has a
“reputation for being a corrupt, rogue, abusive, and
racist officer, ” and that “staff abuse . . .
occurs on a regular basis.” Id. at 7.
Specifically, he states that it is common “to see
security staff escort an inmate to medical under the guise of
a medical call-out to batter the inmate . . . in the presence
of all medical personnel.” Id. at 10. Maynor
further asserts that the medical personnel collude with
security officers to “downplay” inmate injuries
following improper or egregious uses of force against them.
complains that he continues to suffer extreme pain and
distress, including chronic body pains, migraines, numbness
in his face, distorted vision, breathing complications, and
he reports the presence of blood with urination and bowel
movements. Id. at 8, 10. He asserts that, since he
has started preparing this lawsuit and filing grievances, he
has been harassed and suffered an additional head injury that
he believes may have been the result of being pushed or
tripped while walking down stairs. Id. at 9. Maynor
requests that the Court order a review of Lavoie's
personnel file and assist in his attempts to ensure that the
prison officials preserve relevant video footage of the
incidents. Id. at 5, 8. In the proposed order Maynor
filed with his Motion, he seeks an order “enjoining the
Defendants . . . from rendering inadequate medical care and
continued staff abuse and harassment.” See
Proposed Order at 2.
Court is of the opinion that injunctive relief is not
A preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary and
drastic remedy." McDonald's Corp. v.
Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998) (quoting
All Care Nursing Serv., Inc. v. Bethesda Mem'l Hosp.,
Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 1989)). To secure
an injunction, a party must prove four elements: (1) a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2)
irreparable injury absent an injunction; (3) the injury
outweighs whatever damage an injunction may cause the
opposing party; and (4) an injunction is not adverse to the
public interest. Id.
Citizens for Police Accountability Political Comm. v.
Browning, 572 F.3d 1213, 1217 (11th Cir. 2009) (per
curiam); Keister v. Bell, 879 F.3d 1282, 1287-88
(11th Cir. 2018). The movant must clearly establish the
burden of persuasion as to the four requisites. See
McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306
(11th Cir. 1998). Maynor has failed to carry his burden, and
he has failed to comply with the strictures of the applicable
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Local
Rules. As to Maynor's requests to order the
prison officials to preserve video footage or to review
Lavoie's personnel file, this Court lacks the authority
to do so.
only is Maynor's filing insufficient to warrant
injunctive relief, to the extent he is attempting to raise
claims regarding his conditions of confinement or a denial of
medical care, he has not filed a civil rights complaint form.
The Court has approved the use of a civil rights complaint
form for cases filed by prisoners pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The form requires a plaintiff to include
detailed information regarding the defendants he intends to
sue, the plaintiff's litigation history, a statement of
the plaintiff's claims and facts, and the relief the
plaintiff requests. Here, Maynor has not filed a complaint,
nor has he provided the Court with all of the information
required by the civil rights complaint form. If Maynor
chooses to file a civil rights complaint, he may do so on the
proper form, submit a copy of the form for each Defendant,
and submit the filing fee or an affidavit of indigency in
support of a motion to proceed as a pauper. Moreover, his
complaint should be limited to a single incident or related
incidents. If the claims are not related to the same basic
issue or incident, then each claim must be addressed in a
addition, if he names defendants who hold supervisory
positions over those who allegedly violated his
constitutional rights, such as the Warden, Maynor should be
aware that supervisory liability (respondeat
superior) has been rejected as a theory of recovery
under § 1983. See Keith v. DeKalb Cty., Ga.,
749 F.3d 1034, 1047 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing Cottone v.
Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2003)). Although
personal participation is not specifically required for
liability under § 1983, there must be some causal
connection between the Defendant's actions and the
alleged deprivation. See Reid v. Sec'y, Fla.
Dep't of Corr., 486 Fed.Appx. 848, 852 (11th Cir.
2012). One cannot be held liable for the actions or omissions
of others, but can only be held responsible if he
participated in the deprivation of another's
constitutional rights or directed action or omission that
resulted in such a deprivation.
extent Maynor seeks the Court's intervention in the
handling of the grievances in which he reported the beatings
or requested medical care, he has not stated a claim
entitling him to relief. See Bingham v. Thomas, 654
F.3d 1171, 1177-78 (11th Cir. 2011) (recognizing prisoners
have no constitutionally-protected interest in prison
grievance procedures). Moreover, Maynor has not asserted a
due process violation arising out of the disciplinary review
hearing or the committee's decision. See Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 485 (1995). Indeed, Maynor does
not state whether and what punishment was imposed following
the disciplinary review hearing, nor does he assert that he
was deprived due process. For the foregoing reasons, this
case will be dismissed without prejudice to Maynor's
right to initiate a civil rights action to address any
allegedly unconstitutional conditions of his confinement, if
he elects to file one.
it is now
Maynor's Motion for injunctive relief ...