United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division
J. DAVIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Wendall Jermaine Hall, is proceeding on a pro se civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1; Compl.)
against the following individuals: Nurse Phillips, Nurse
Polk, and Officer J. Johnson. Before the Court is Nurses
Phillips and Polk's joint motion to dismiss the Complaint
(Doc. 35; Motion). Plaintiff has responded (Doc. 46; Resp.).
Accordingly, the motion is ripe for this Court's review.
ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept the
factual allegations set forth in the complaint as true.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Additionally, the complaint allegations must be construed in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Gill as Next
Friend of K.C.R. v. Judd, 941 F.3d 504, 511 (11th Cir.
2019). When a plaintiff proceeds pro se, the court must
liberally construe the allegations. See Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Bingham v.
Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1175 (11th Cir. 2011). However,
“the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the
allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal
conclusions[, ]” which simply “are not entitled
to [an] assumption of truth.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678,
detailed factual allegations are not required, Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 8(a) demands “more than an
accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. As such, a
plaintiff may not rely on “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements.” Gill, 941 F.3d at 511 (quoting Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678). Rather, the well-pled allegations must nudge
the claim “across the line from conceivable to
plausible.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A plaintiff must allege
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id.
claims arise out of conduct that occurred at the Reception
and Medical Center (RMC). Compl. at 2. Plaintiff alleges
that, at the relevant times, he had a valid medical pass to
receive medical supplies, including catheters, for his
urinary conditions. Id. at 14, 16. Beginning on
about October 31, 2018, Nurses Phillips and Polk denied
Plaintiff his catheter supplies. Id. at 13.
Plaintiff asserts the denial of catheters results in a
“worsening stricture in his penis that hinders or stops
him from urinating, ” causing pain, bloating,
difficulty walking, and other issues. Id.
contends Nurses Phillips and Polk failed to provide him
catheters in retaliation for Plaintiff filing grievances
against them and because he had been disciplined for
masturbating. Id. at 14. Plaintiff further alleges
Nurses Phillips and Polk impermissibly refused to provide him
medical supplies unless an officer escorted him to the
medical supply room. Id. at 15, 18. In support of
his Complaint, Plaintiff offers the affidavit of inmate Elder
Williams. Id. at 23. Inmate Williams avers that on
October 31, 2018, he witnessed Nurse Phillips refuse to give
Plaintiff catheter supplies because Plaintiff was not
escorted by an officer. Id. at 24.
asserts Defendants' actions amount to deliberate
indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment,
retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and a denial
of equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Id. at 19, 20, 21. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and
punitive damages from Defendants in their individual
capacities, and injunctive relief from Defendants in their
official capacities. Id. at 12, 22.
seek dismissal on the following grounds: (1) Plaintiff is a
three-strikes litigant who is barred from proceeding in forma
pauperis under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g); (2) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies; and (3) Plaintiff fails to state a
claim for deliberate indifference and
retaliation. See Motion at 1. Defendants also assert
they are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 10.
Analysis & Conclusions
Court previously found Plaintiff alleged facts to invoke the
imminent danger exception under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See
Order (Doc. 5). As such, Defendants' attorney's
representation that the Court made no such finding, see
Motion at 2, 7, is incorrect.