United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Second Amended
Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. 24) filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff is an inmate proceeding in this
case pro se.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), federal courts are obligated to
conduct an initial screening of certain civil suits brought
by prisoners to determine whether they should proceed. Upon
review, a court is required to dismiss a complaint (or any
portion thereof) in the following circumstances:
(b) Grounds for Dismissal.-On review, the court shall
identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any
portion of the complaint, if the complaint-
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). In addition, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e) directs courts to dismiss actions which are
frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or
seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is
frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or in
fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
The Court must read a plaintiff s pro se allegations
in a liberal fashion. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519
(1972) (explaining that pro se complaints are
"h[eld] to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.").
states that his claims against Defendants arise under Title
42 United States Code Section 1983. (Doc. 7). "[S]ection
1983 provides a method for vindicating federal rights
conferred by the Constitution and federal statutes."
Bannum, Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 901 F.2d
989, 997 (11th Cir. 1990). To successfully plead a Section
1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege two elements: "(1)
that the act or omission deprived plaintiff of a right,
privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of
the United States, and (2) that the act or omission was done
by a person acting under color of law." Id.
Thus, a plaintiff must show that the defendant acted under
the color of law or otherwise showed some type of state
action that led to the violation of the plaintiffs rights.
the Eighth Amendment, Plaintiff has filed suit against
Correctional Officer Razza Horta and Sergeant R. Grice in
their individual and official capacities, and against
Centurion of Florida in its official capacity. (Doc. 24 at
3-4). Plaintiff alleges that, on September 11, 2018,
Defendant Horta carelessly threw a ball back to an inmate in
the recreation yard, causing Plaintiff to attempt to dodge
the ball. The ball hit him in the ankle, causing him to slip
in the mud and fracture his ankle. Defendant Grice did not
allow Plaintiff access to a wheelchair on the recreational
yard and told him he would have to crawl off the yard if he
wanted to go to the infirmary. (Doc. 24 at 5-6). Plaintiff
claims his ankle was fractured, that he had a cast put on it
twenty-five days later, that the cast was on for twenty-eight
days, and that he was given no pain medications. (Doc. 24 at
6). He complains that he was not given surgery to correct the
damage to his ankle and that he suffers constant foot and
ankle pain. (Id.). He seeks both compensatory and
punitive damages. (Doc. 24 at 6).
allege an Eighth Amendment violation with regard to his
medical care, Plaintiff must show that the failure to provide
him medical care amounted to cruel and unusual punishment
under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The Eleventh Circuit has explained that,
To state an Eighth Amendment claim under § 1983, a
prisoner must allege facts to satisfy both an objective and
subjective inquiry regarding a prison official's conduct.
Chandler v. Crosby,379 F.3d 1278, 1289 (11th Cir.
2004). Under the objective component, a prisoner must allege
a prison condition that is so extreme that it poses an
unreasonable risk of serious damage to the prisoner's
health or safety. To satisfy the subjective component, the
prisoner must allege that the prison official, at a minimum,
acted with a state of mind that constituted deliberate
indifference. "[D]eliberate indifference has three
components: (1) subjective knowledge of a risk of serious
harm; (2) ...