Russell v. Randolph et al, No. 2:2021cv00507 - Document 28 (M.D. Ala. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/16/2022. (bes, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Russell v. Randolph et al Doc. 28 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION RYON RUSSELL, Plaintiff, v. CLEVON T. RANDOLPH, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21cv507-MHT (WO) OPINION Plaintiff Ryon Russell, who is incarcerated by the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC), has named as defendants former ADOC Commissioner Jefferson Dunn and ADOC correctional officers Clevon T. Randolph, Rufus Williams, Bryant Mims, and Daniel Gay.* U.S.C. § 1983, he asserts that Relying on 42 Randolph, Williams, Mims, and Gay violated the Eighth Amendment by beating him--and failing to intervene in his beating--after he did not immediately comply with an order to move to a * In his complaint, Russell incorrectly refers to defendant Gay as “Gates.” See Complaint (Doc. 1) at ¶ 5; Answer (Doc. 9) at 1 n.2. Dockets.Justia.com new dormitory where he had certain enemies. asserts Eighth that former Amendment by Commissioner failing to Dunn He also violated provide an the adequate grievance procedure for protesting the decision to move him into the new dormitory. The court has jurisdiction over his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question) and 1343 (civil rights). This cause is now before the court on Dunn’s motion to dismiss the claim against him. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted. I. Standard on Motion to Dismiss Former Commissioner Dunn moves to dismiss Russell’s claim against him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint To survive a “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 2 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. II. Factual Background According to the allegations in the complaint, Russell is incarcerated at Bullock Correctional Center, a prison operated by ADOC. In August 2019, a correctional officer notified him that he was required to move to a new dormitory. He politely protested, explaining that he had enemies in the new dormitory. He then approached officer Randolph and asked him to reconsider the decision to move him. and Russell asked commanding officer. then summoned knocked for permission to speak Randolph refused again. officers Russell to Randolph refused the Williams, ground 3 Mims, and and with his Randolph Gay, handcuffed who him. While Russell was handcuffed and prone, the four officers kicked him repeatedly and dumped garbage on him. He sustained severe injuries and required treatment at the prison infirmary. III. Discussion Russell brings only one claim against former Commissioner Dunn: he alleges that Dunn violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide him with an adequate grievance procedure to protest the decision to move him to a new dormitory. In Eighth his dismissal Amendment does motion, not Dunn provide adequate grievance procedure. argues a that right to the an See Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19-1) at 5 (citing Thomas v. Warner, 237 F. App’x 435, 437-38 (11th Cir. 2007)). And in his response, Russell “admits that precedent may be interpreted to mean that an inmate has no right to file grievances,” although he maintains that this precedent is wrongly 4 decided “and wishes to preserve his arguments for a change in the law.” Response to Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21) at 1 (citing Baker v. Rexroad, 159 F. App’x 61, 62 (11th Cir. 2005)). Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that incarcerated people have no constitutional right to an adequate grievance procedure. See Wildberger v. Bracknell, 869 F.2d 1467, 1467-68 (11th Cir. 1989); Bingham (11th Cir. 2011). v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1177 Accordingly, Russell’s claim against Dunn is due to be dismissed. In claim also the of section of “inadequate includes the his complaint grievance following devoted procedures,” sentence: to his Russell “Separate and apart from the lack of adequate grievance procedures, the Department of Corrections also lacks an adequate method for tracking and separating ‘enemies,’ which are inmates that openly threaten to harm other inmates.” Complaint (Doc. 1) at ¶ 38. 5 If he intends by this sentence to state a claim of deliberate indifference against Dunn, or any of the defendants, he has failed to do so. To state an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient serious harm; to show (2) (1) the a substantial defendant’s risk of deliberate indifference to that risk--i.e., that the defendant had subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm, that he disregarded such risk, and that, in doing so, he was more than merely negligent; and (3) that the defendant’s deliberate indifference caused the risk of serious harm--that is, that the defendant was personally involved in the acts or omissions that led to the risk. See Lane v. Philbin, 835 F.3d 1302, 1307-10 (11th Cir. 2016); LaMarca v. Turner, 995 F.2d 1526, 1535-39 (11th Cir. 1993). Russell is free to amend his complaint, and the claims against Randolph, Williams, Mims, and Gay remain pending. 6 *** An appropriate judgment will be entered. DONE, this the 16th day of August, 2022. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
