Canning v. Jackson et al, No. 6:2022cv00038 - Document 45 (S.D. Ga. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER granting 41 Motion to Dismiss. Defendants Bobbitt, Wicker, Edwards, Ward, Holt, Toole, Shepard, and Sauls are dismissed as parties to this action. Counts II-IV of Plaintiff's amended complaint are dismissed. Count I remains pending. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 02/28/2023. (maa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Canning v. Jackson et al Doc. 45 Case 6:22-cv-00038-JRH-CLR Document 45 Filed 02/28/23 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION * JOHN CANNING, * * Plaintiff, * V. * CV 622-038 * * SHIRLEY JACKSON, et al.. * Defendants. * ORDER Plaintiff John Canning brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against ten Defendants, all personnel at Georgia State Prison ("GSP") and within the Georgia Department of Corrections {'"GDOC"), for injuries he suffered while incarcerated. (Am. Compl., Doc. 37, at 1.) Defendants Bobbitt, Wicker, Edwards, Ward, Holt, Toole, Shepard, and Sauls (collectively, the ""Moving Defendants'') move to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. 41.) (Doc. For the following reasons, the Moving Defendants' motion is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND On or around January 27, 2020, Plaintiff was an inmate at GSP, an all-male prison. (Am. Compl., at 4.) That afternoon, another inmate, known to Plaintiff as ""Psycho," sought to enter Plaintiff's cell. (Id.) Psycho said Plaintiff's cell provided a Dockets.Justia.com Case 6:22-cv-00038-JRH-CLR Document 45 Filed 02/28/23 Page 2 of 19 better vantage point for him to watch the female nurses, and he wanted to enter the cell and masturbate. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff alleges that openly masturbating in front of another person without consent is an act of sexual violence. (Id.) to refuse Psycho's entry into his cell. entered the cell anyways, and after Plaintiff attempted (Id.) he However, Psycho entered. Plaintiff physically restrained Psycho and forced him out of the cell. (Id.) Psycho and an unknown inmate then together forced their way back into Plaintiff's cell, and Psycho had a knife that he swung and used to stab Plaintiff in the face. (Id.) Another inmate, known to Plaintiff as ''Roun," intervened with his own make-shift weapon, knocked out Psycho, and whisked Plaintiff to safety. (Id.) The knife stab caused Plaintiff to bleed profusely from his mouth and nose, and he began gagging due to the sheer volume of blood. and (Id.) took him A corrections officer noticed Plaintiff's injury to the medical ward where Occhipinti attended to him. (Id. at 6.) Occhipinti in he was stabbed the face Defendant Dr. Marcus Plaintiff told Defendant with a knife, Defendant Occhipinti believed it was a superficial wound. however (Id.) Plaintiff began vomiting blood and continued bleeding so much he filled a bucket with blood. (Id.) Defendant Occhipinti ordered x-rays and then released Plaintiff from the medical ward. (Id.) After leaving the medical ward. Plaintiff encountered Defendant Sergeant Carol Eason-Jackson and pled for emergency help. (Id.) Case 6:22-cv-00038-JRH-CLR Document 45 Filed 02/28/23 Page 3 of 19 Defendant Eason-Jackson put Plaintiff in a urine-covered cell in solitary confinement. (Id.) While in solitary confinement, he continued to lose blood and eventually passed out. (Id. at 7.) A prison orderly walked by Plaintiff's cell and noticed his motionless body and immediately Reidsville Fire Department. the paramedics were (Id.) ''aghast" called paramedics at the Upon arriving at the prison, at Plaintiff s airlifted him to Savannah General Hospital. (Id.) lift. Plaintiff filled another bucket with blood. condition and During the air (Id.) Once at the hospital. Plaintiff was operated on for twelve hours - he had a severed artery and multiple broken bones. (Id.) The doctors concluded Plaintiff likely would have died from blood loss if not for the paramedics' intervention. (Id.) Plaintiff believed he was going to die when in solitary confinement, and he alleges those beliefs were accurate based on the injuries he suffered. The above-described close encounter with death (Id.) caused Plaintiff severe psychological issues, and he was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD") by his counselor at GSP and prescribed medication. (Id.) suffer from emotional trauma He alleges that he continues to being attacked, stabbed, and believing he would bleed to death as well as due to the attempted sexual assault on his person. (Id. at 7-8.) Further, he alleges he continues to suffer physical pain from his broken bones and stab wound. (Id. at 8.) Case 6:22-cv-00038-JRH-CLR Document 45 Filed 02/28/23 Page 4 of 19 Plaintiff's Amended Complaint asserts Defendants exhibit a pattern of disregarding inmate health and safety. Specifically, he alleges the widespread presence of weapons at GSP, lack of functioning (Id.) knives and security measures, insufficient staff, disregard for medical issues, understaffing of solitary confinement cells, and abandonment of prisoners serious conditions are not isolated to his case. of the Defendants moving to dismiss were not (Id.) involved with Several in the immediate events of Plaintiff's injuries, and the Court will review their job descriptions below. All Defendants are sued in their individual capacities. Defendant Bobbitt is or was the Warden of GSP at the relevant times and is responsible for overseeing all inmates and staff. (Id. at 2.) Defendant Wicker is or was Deputy Warden of Security at has GSP and therein. (Id.) supervisory He is or authority over all security staff was responsible for overseeing the security and living conditions of all inmates at GSP. (Id. at 3.) Defendant Edwards is Deputy Warden of Care and Treatment at GSP and responsible for overseeing the daily operation of the medical, mental health, education, and counseling services. (Id.) Defendant Ward is Commissioner and has final authority over the management of all prisons in the GDOC, including GSP. also oversees the GDOCs four divisions: (Id.) He facilities, administration & finance, health services, and inmate services. Case 6:22-cv-00038-JRH-CLR Document 45 Filed 02/28/23 Page 5 of 19 (Id.) the Defendant Holt is the Assistant Commissioner in charge of GDOCs facilities division, responsible for the direct supervision of all persons incarcerated by the GDOC. (Id.) manages Defendant Ward. the (Id.) operations facilities under authority delegated by He Defendant Toole is the director of the GDOCs field division operations of the and responsible GDOC facilities. for (Id.) overseeing He operates authority delegated to him by Defendants Ward and Holt. daily under (Id.) Defendant Shepard is the Southeast Regional Director for the GDOC and is responsible for overseeing management of the 14 facilities throughout southeast Georgia, including GSP. (Id. at 4.) He manages the prisons under authority delegated to him by Defendants Ward, Holt, and Toole. (Id.) Finally, Defendant Sauls is the Assistant Commissioner in charge of the GDOCs services division and is responsible for services to all inmates. overseeing the delivery of health care (Id.) II. LEGAL STANDARDS The Moving Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint under Federal Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. 41, at 1.) of Civil Procedure 8, 10, and In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other grounds by Case 6:22-cv-00038-JRH-CLR Document 45 Filed 02/28/23 Page 6 of 19 Davis V. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain ""a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" to give the defendant fair notice of both the claim and the supporting grounds. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 "Metalled (2007). Although factual allegations" are not required. Rule 8 ""demands more than an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A plaintiff's pleading obligation ""requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. ""Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders "naked assertions' devoid of "further factual enhancement.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). The Court need not accept the pleading's legal conclusions as true, only its well-pleaded facts. Id. at 677-7 9. Furthermore, ""the court may dismiss a complaint pursuant to [Rule 12(b)(6)] when, on the basis of a dispositive issue of law, no construction of the factual allegations will support the cause of action." Marshall Cnty. Ed. of Educ. v. Marshall Cnty. Gas Dist., 992 F.2d 1171, 1174 (11th Cir. 1993) (citing Exec. 100, Inc. v. Martin Cnty., 922 F.2d 1536, 1539 (11th Cir. 1991)). Case 6:22-cv-00038-JRH-CLR Document 45 Filed 02/28/23 Page 7 of 19 III. DISCUSSION Plaintiff brings four claims in his Amended Complaint against various Defendants. (Am. Compl., at 14-17.) The Moving Defendants move to dismiss Counts II-IV, the only claims asserted against them. (Doc. 41.) Count II is against Defendants Bobbitt, Edwards, Ward, and Sauls and asserts supervisory liability for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and § 1983.^ (Am. Compl., at 15-16.) Specifically, the Amended Complaint alleges these Defendants had supervisory authority over Defendant Occhipinti and were aware of the substantial risk he would pose to prisoners due to numerous credible concerns of other inmates being denied emergency medical care by medical staff at GSP. (Id.) Count III is against Defendants Bobbitt, Wicker, Ward, Holt, Toole, and Shepard and asserts the same claim as Count II. (Id. at 16.) Count alleges these supervisory authority over Defendants had However, this Defendant Jackson and had a federal and constitutional duty to take reasonable steps to prevent Defendant Jackson from leaving Plaintiff to die in solitary confinement. (Id.) Count IV is against Defendants Bobbitt, Wicker, Ward, Holt, Toole, and Shepard ^ The Court notes that § 1983 "is not itself a source of substantive rights, but a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred . . . Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979). An incarcerated plaintiff can use § 1983 to challenge a deprivation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, which was made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 101-02 (1976) (citation omitted). Case 6:22-cv-00038-JRH-CLR Document 45 Filed 02/28/23 Page 8 of 19 and alleges deliberate indifference toward a substantial risk of harm in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and § 1983. (Id. at 16-17.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges these Defendants were responsible for the security of the prison and safety of inmates held there and knew about the serious risk to Plaintiff's health and safety posed by the presence of weapons, lack of secure door locks, and lack of security staff due to numerous sources before the present attack. (Id. at 17.) The Moving Defendants move to dismiss all three counts against them. (See Docs. 41, 41-1.) (Doc. 42.) Plaintiff responded in opposition. The Court addresses their arguments below. A. Shotgun Pleading First, the Moving Defendants argue the Amended Complaint is an impermissible shotgun pleading. argue the "counts themselves are (Doc. 41-1, at 1-3.) little more than They ^threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, which do not suffice.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679).) In response. (Id. at 2 (quoting Plaintiff argues he properly identified which Defendants are sued for which counts and provided a straightforward basis on which each claim is grounds for the relief sought. (Doc. 42, at 4.) The Eleventh Circuit has identified four types of shotgun pleadings, but a pleading must only qualify as one of the four to be considered a shotgun pleading. 8 The first type is one Case 6:22-cv-00038-JRH-CLR Document 45 Filed 02/28/23 Page 9 of 19 ''containing multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts, causing each successive count to carry all that came before . . . Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff^ s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1321 (11th Cir. 2015). The second type is a pleading "replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action." Id. at 1322. The third type is one that does not separate each cause of action or claim for relief into a separate count. 1323. Id. at And fourth is a pleading "asserting multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying which of the defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions, or which of the defendants the claim is brought against." Id. The intention of avoiding shotgun pleadings is to ensure defendants have short and plain statements that against them. provide adequate notice of the claims brought Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1294- 95 (11th Cir. 2018) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). Further, it avoids an "intolerable toll" on both the court's docket and the parties involved. See Cramer v. State of Fla., 117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997). In this Defendants' instance, concerns while about the Plaintiff Court shares grouping all the Moving Defendants together in its factual allegations, the Court does not find the Amended Complaint qualifies as a shotgun pleading. The Court Case 6:22-cv-00038-JRH-CLR Document 45 Filed 02/28/23 Page 10 of 19 therefore turns to the Moving Defendants' other arguments for dismissal. B. Failure to State a Claim The Moving Defendants next argue Plaintiff fails to state a claim against them because each was sued because of his or her supervisory authority over the conditions that led to Plaintiff's injuries, and Plaintiff supervisor liability. has not met the (Doc. 41-1, at 3.) burden of alleging Specifically, they argue there are no allegations any of the Moving Defendants personally participated in the alleged bad acts, and there is no suggestion of a custom or policy, directing a subordinate to act unlawfully, or failing to stop a subordinate from acting unlawfully. (Id. at 4.) Typically, ""supervisory officials are not [] liable under § 1983 for the unconstitutional acts of their subordinates on the basis of respondeat superior or vicarious liability." Parnell, 193 F.3d 1263, 1269 (11th Cir. 1999) Hartley v. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); accord Stallworth v. Wilkins, 802 F. App'x 435 (11th Cir. 2020). To impose supervisory liability for § 1983 violations, a plaintiff must allege either (1) ""the supervisor personally participate[d] in unconstitutional conduct" or (2) ""there is a the alleged causal connection between the actions of a supervising official and the alleged constitutional deprivation." Cottone 10 v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, Case 6:22-cv-00038-JRH-CLR Document 45 Filed 02/28/23 Page 11 of 19 1360 (11th Cir. 2003), abrogated in part on other grounds by Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701 (11th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff does not allege the Moving Defendants personally participated in the alleged events, so the Court must determine whether there is Moving causal connection Defendants deprivations. allege a and between the actions Plaintiff's alleged of the constitutional To establish a causal connection. Plaintiff must either: (1) "a history of widespread abuse put[] the responsible supervisor on notice of the need to correct the alleged [constitutional] deprivation, and he fail[ed] to do so," (2) ""a supervisor's custom or policy result[ed] in deliberate indifference to constitutional rights," or (3) "facts support an inference that the supervisor directed the subordinates to act unlawfully or knew that the subordinates would act unlawfully and failed to stop them from doing so." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Gonzalez v. Reno, 325 F.3d 1228, 1234-35 (11th Cir. 2003)). "The deprivations that constitute widespread abuse sufficient to notify the supervising official must be obvious, flagrant, rampant and of continued duration, rather than isolated occurrences." Hartley, 193 F.3d at 1269 (citing Brown v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 671 (11th Cir. 1990)). "The standard by which a supervisor is held liable in [his] individual capacity for the actions of a subordinate is extremely rigorous." 11 Cottone, 326 Case 6:22-cv-00038-JRH-CLR Document 45 Filed 02/28/23 Page 12 of 19 F.3d at 1360-61 (quoting Gonzalez, 325 F.3ci at 1234) (alterations in original). The Moving Defendants argue there is no suggestion of a custom or policy, directing a subordinate to act unlawfully, or failing to stop a subordinate from acting unlawfully. (Doc. 41-1, at 4.) Furthermore, they argue Plaintiff ''attempts to allege a history of widespread abuse but many of the averments are too conclusory to state a claim." (Id. at 4 (citations omitted).) They assert the actual facts in the Amended Complaint do not amount to widespread abuse necessary (Id.) to establish a "history of widespread abuse." In response. Plaintiff argues at this stage of litigation he only must put the Defendants on fair notice of what his claims are and the Complaint grounds should for not be the claims; dismissed therefore, when there is his a Amended reasonable expectation discovery could supply additional proof of liability. (Doc. 42, at 6-7.) He argues his Amended Complaint cites "the widespread presence of knives and other weapons inside [GSP], lack of functioning security measures, insufficient staff to prevent violent attacks using these weapons, disregard of serious medical issues, understaffing of solitary confinement cells, and abandonments of individuals [] with serious conditions to the point of death history in of solitary abuse. confinement" to (Id. at 7-8.) illustrate Further, he a widespread argues "prior litigation, media reports, audits carried out by various state 12 Case 6:22-cv-00038-JRH-CLR Document 45 Filed 02/28/23 Page 13 of 19 entities of [GSP], an investigation by the federal Department of Justice, and research reports from advocacy organizations" establish notice for Defendants, as well as documents not available to him but situation reports held reports, from by Defendants institutional officers. (Id. at regarding offender 8.) inmate files, Plaintiff grievances, and informal argues these allegations at minimum establish the plausibility of widespread abuse and are sufficient under Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.Sd 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2012). (Id.) Preliminarily, '"stating a claim does not unlock the doors of discovery for a conclusions." plaintiff Tolbert v. armed Trammell, with No. nothing more 2:13-cv-2108, than 2014 WL 3892115, at *9 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 4, 2012) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Pleadings that fail to state a claim are not entitled to discovery to improve their factual foundation." Id. Based on this. Plaintiff's argument that he has done enough because he has put Defendants on notice and there is a reasonable expectation discovery could supply additional proof of liability is without merit. The Court now turns to whether Plaintiff sufficiently pled supervisory liability. Plaintiff argues there was a history of widespread abuse that should have put the supervisors on notice of the need to correct the alleged constitutional deprivation, and they failed to do so. (Doc. 42, at 8.) 13 The Amended Complaint Case 6:22-cv-00038-JRH-CLR Document 45 Filed 02/28/23 Page 14 of 19 states the Defendants exhibit a pattern of disregarding inmate health and safety and cites to the presence of knives and weapons at GSP, numerous attacks and killings within the GDOC and at GSP, insufficient restriction understaffing. on the (Am. Compl., at 8-12.) movement of inmates, The Moving Defendants argue Plaintiffs' allegations are too conclusory to state a claim. 41-1, at 4.) and (Doc. After analyzing the Amended Complaint, the Court agrees with the Moving Defendants. First, Plaintiff cites to numerous attacks and killings at GSP and within the GDOC and (Am. Compl., at 8-9.) uses statistics from 2020 and 2021. However, as the Moving Defendants argue, the incidents took place after Plaintiff's attack in January 2020 so could not have put the Moving Defendants on notice of widespread abuse. weapons (See Doc. 41-1, at 4.) and cites statistics Next, Plaintiff alleges access to from various sources presence of weapons at GSP and within the GDOC. 9-10.) about the (Am. Compl., at First, he cites to a 2014 report from the Southern Center for Human Rights that states from 2010-2014, 33 prisoners and one officer were killed by other prisoners and contributed the killings to lethal weapons such as (citing Doc. 37-1, at 26.)) knives, shanks, and machetes. (Id. However, these numbers were collected almost 10 years before Plaintiff's incident, so it is conclusory to assume they could have put the Moving Defendants on notice of widespread abuse when so many 14 years have passed since the Case 6:22-cv-00038-JRH-CLR Document 45 Filed 02/28/23 Page 15 of 19 statistics were collected. Next, Plaintiff cites to 2018 and 2019 GSP Annual Reports that found tools from the kitchen, maintenance, and other areas of the prison were not checked daily or properly inventoried. (Id. at 10.) However, Plaintiff does not allege he was injured by an unaccounted tool, so these studies are irrelevant to the facts of the case. Plaintiff also cites to studies dealing with contraband mailed to GDOC facilities, but again some were published after his incident and there are no allegations linking the knife in this case to anything mailed into the prison, so this could not have put the Moving Defendants on notice of this type of widespread abuse either. the facts Plaintiff Plaintiff's injuries. As the Moving Defendants correctly argue, alleges do not amount to causation of (See Doc. 41-1, at 5.) Next, Plaintiff alleges insufficient restriction on inmate movement and understaffing lead to widespread threats to inmate safety. (Am. Compl., at 11-12.) He states the 2019 GSP Annual Report showed that when offenders were moved to dorms, the officers did not receive locator cards. (Id. at 11.) However, there is no connection on how this could have put the Moving Defendants on notice of the events that transpired here. to a 2021 report, after his incident, Plaintiff also cites in which inmates interviewed and admitted they knew how to unlock cell doors. were (Id.) Once again, the Court does not believe the allegations regarding inmate movement rise to the ^^extremely 15 rigorous" standard of Case 6:22-cv-00038-JRH-CLR Document 45 Filed 02/28/23 Page 16 of 19 supervisory liability sufficient to put the Moving Defendants on notice of widespread abuse. See Gibbons v. McBride^ 124 F. Supp. 3d 1342, 1364-65 (S.D. Ga. 2015) (^^In short, the standard by which a supervisor is held liable in his individual capacity for the actions of a subordinate is extremely rigorous." (citation and quotations omitted)). Plaintiff also alleges understaffing was prevalent at GSP, and the Defendants were aware of the threat to inmate safety due to chronic understaffing. (Am. Compl., at 12.) However, there are no allegations understaffing caused Plaintiff's assault; he simply alleges a lack of security staffing posed a serious risk allegations at are GSP. also (See id. insufficient at to 17.) Therefore, illustrate the these Moving Defendants were on notice of widespread abuse and a risk of harm to Plaintiff. Finally, Plaintiff cites to prior and ongoing litigation, arguing these cases put the Defendants on notice of the need to correct the alleged constitutional deprivations. (Id. at 13-14.) The Moving Defendants argue prior litigation has not put them on notice of dangerous conditions or a pattern of denying medical care for serious medical needs. (Doc. 41-1, at 5.) In response. Plaintiff argues even a handful of medical indifference cases, in their totality, constitute a widespread problem alone. at 8.) (Doc. 42, The Court disagrees with Plaintiff's argument, especially in light of the fact ^'[t]he law does not impose upon correctional 16 Case 6:22-cv-00038-JRH-CLR Document 45 Filed 02/28/23 Page 17 of 19 officials a duty to directly supervise health care personnel, to set treatment policy for the medical staff, or to intervene in treatment decisions intervention is where they necessary to have prevent no a actual knowledge constitutional that wrong." Cameron v. Allen, 525 F. Supp. 2d 1302, 1307 (M.D. Ala. 2007). Based on this. Plaintiff's cited lawsuits are insufficient establish supervisor liability as to the Moving Defendants. to Next, the Moving Defendants argue that just because five inmates in 2015 and 2016 made allegations concerning healthcare does not mean any of them had merit, none of these Defendants were parties to those suits, and knowledge of such cannot be imputed to them. 1, at 5-6.) (Doc. 41- Furthermore, they argue that even if all five cited lawsuits had merit, they do not constitute abuse that is obvious, flagrant, rampant, and isolated occurrences. 1269).) of continued duration, but instead, (Id. at 6 (citing Hartley, 193 F.3d at Finally, the Moving Defendants argue the Middleton lawsuit referenced by Plaintiff contains overlap in the Defendants; however, it was filed in 2021 and the incidents occurred after Plaintiff was attacked, so it again does not illustrate a history of widespread abuse. (Id.) In response. Plaintiff argues that even if some of the incidents or indicators of misconduct occurred after his own assault, they still illustrate that the problems had been ongoing for years and his complaint contains allegations that the patterns of misconduct stretch back to before his assault. 17 Case 6:22-cv-00038-JRH-CLR Document 45 Filed 02/28/23 Page 18 of 19 (Doc. 42, at 9.) Plaintiff argues there is no need for the cited litigation to be successful because '"where the litigation asserts the plausibility of widespread abuse in the form of generalized risks, the underlying alleged abuses are enough to establish notice regardless of which officials were sued." (Id. at 10.) The Court finds that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint does not sufficiently plead allegations of abuse that are so "obvious, flagrant, rampant, and of continued duration" to put the Moving Defendants on notice of widespread abuse. at 1269 (citation omitted). See Hartley, 193 F.3d While Plaintiff pleads many isolated occurrences from before and after his own attack, the allegations do not meet the "extremely rigorous" standard required to hold supervisors liable for the acts of Gibbons, 124 F. Supp. 3d at 1364-65. statistics Plaintiff outlines in their subordinates. See The isolated incidents and his Amended Complaint were insufficient to put the Moving Defendants on notice of what might happen to Plaintiff during the alleged incident. connection to link the Moving Defendants Without a causal to the alleged unconstitutional acts, there is no basis for supervisor liability. The Court therefore DISMISSES all claims against the Moving Defendants. C. Qualified Immunity Finally, the Moving Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff's claims. 18 (Doc. 41-1, at 7.) Case 6:22-cv-00038-JRH-CLR Document 45 Filed 02/28/23 Page 19 of 19 Since the Court has found Plaintiff's claims fail because he did not sufficiently allege supervisory liability, the Court will not address the Moving Defendants' qualified immunity arguments. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Bobbitt, Wicker, Edwards, Ward, Holt, Toole, Shepard, and Sauls' motion to dismiss (Doc. 41) is GRANTED Plaintiff's TVmended Complaint are DISMISSED. to terminate Defendants Bobbitt, Wicker, and Counts II-IV of The CLERK is DIRECTED Edwards, Ward, Toole, Shepard, and Sauls as parties to this action. Holt, Count I remains pending. ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this February, 2023. RAN lALL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTH^N DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 19 day of
]]>
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.
