United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division
Patricia D. Barksdale United States Magistrate Judge
plaintiff, an inmate without a lawyer, sues twenty-six
defendants for alleged constitutional and state law
violations. Doc. 4.
complaint must provide “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Each allegation must be
“simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(d)(1). A complaint must state claims in numbered
paragraphs, “each limited as far as practicable to a
single set of circumstances.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b).
Labels, conclusions, and formulaic recitations of the
elements, and “naked” assertions are
insufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
must hold a pro se plaintiff to a less stringent standard
than a lawyer. Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d
1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). If a more carefully drafted
complaint might state a claim, a court must afford a pro se
plaintiff at least one chance to amend the complaint before
the court may dismiss it with prejudice. Bryant v.
Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001). A court
may not rewrite a deficient complaint for a pro se plaintiff
or otherwise serve as his de facto counsel. GJR
Investments, Inc. v. County of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359,
1369 (11th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662.
amended complaint includes some factual allegations. But it
remains deficient because it fails to allege facts about each
defendant, fails to allege facts to connect each defendant to
each cause of action, asserts causes of action against
defendants who are not listed as parties in section I,
includes conclusory assertions unsupported by factual
allegations, and fails to specify which factual allegations
support which causes of action.
proceed, the plaintiff must file an amended complaint. In
amending the complaint, he must consider the following law.
to state a claim for deliberate indifference in violation of
the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must allege facts showing a
prison official “actually (subjectively) knows [he] is
facing a substantial risk of serious harm, yet disregards
that known risk by failing to respond to it in an
(objectively) reasonable manner.” Rodriguez v.
Sec’y for Dep’t of Corr., 508 F.3d 611, 617
(11th Cir. 2007). A prisoner’s vague, generalized, and
unsubstantiated reports of fear do not put prison officials
on notice that he faces a substantial risk of serious harm.
Carter v. Galloway, 352 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir.
2003). A prisoner claiming cruel and unusual prison
conditions must allege facts showing an “extreme
deprivation violating contemporary standards of
decency.” Thomas v. Bryant, 614 F.3d 1288,
1306-07 (11th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
supervisory liability has been rejected as a theory of
recovery under § l983. A supervisor cannot be held
liable under § 1983 under respondeat superior or
vicarious liability. Danley v. Allen, 540 F.3d 1298,
1314 (11th Cir. 2008), abrogated on other grounds as
recognized in Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 709
(11th Cir. 2010). For supervisory liability under §
1983, the supervisor must personally participate in the
alleged constitutional violation or there must be a causal
connection between the supervisor’s actions and the
alleged constitutional deprivation. Id.
“an inmate has no constitutionally-protected liberty
interest in access to” a prison’s grievance
procedure. Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1177
(11th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, a claim under § 1983 that
a prison’s grievance procedures are inadequate is
threatening language and gestures are not constitutional
violations. McFadden v. Lucas, 713 F.2d 143, 146
(5th Cir. 1983). A claim that a prison official was mean to a
prisoner is frivolous.
serving time in disciplinary confinement implicates no
constitutionally protected liberty interest sufficient to
support a due process claim unless the confinement imposes
“an atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in
relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.”
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995).
plaintiff files an amended complaint:
1. The amended complaint must state the full name of each
defendant (to the extent the plaintiff knows the full name)
in both the case caption and the listing of “Parties ...