Allen v. Harrell

• Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
• Decided: August 25, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00191
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AUGUSTA DIVISION

HOSEY ALLEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV 125-191 ) CAPTAIN HARRELL, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

_________________________________________________________

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ____________________________________________________________ On August 21, 2025, Defendants removed 2025RCCV00541 from the Superior Court of Richmond County, Georgia, to this Court, and the case was assigned Civil Action Number CV 125-191. (See doc. no. 1.) Examination of the complaint filed in state court reveals Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at Charles B. Webster Detention Center in Augusta, Georgia, has a currently pending federal case dealing with the same facts, Allen v. Harrell, CV 125-144 (S.D. Ga. June 17, 2025). Both original complaints, dated June 11, 2025, complain about Plaintiff’s exposure to insects and black mold in H-Pod/MMED/ Cell 5/ Bunk 2 after Plaintiff’s May 4, 2025 arrest. CV 125-144, doc. no. 1, p. 5; (doc. no. 1-1, p. 7). Indeed, the complaint in CV 125-144 acknowledges filing the Richmond County Superior Court case “dealing with the same facts involved in this action.” CV 125-144, doc. no. 1, p. 1. Upon initial review of CV 125-144, the Court identified pleading deficiencies and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, which he has done. CV 125-144, doc. nos. 3, 6. The complaint removed from the Richmond County Superior Court suffers from the same pleading deficiencies, i.e., allegations not tied to any specific Defendant and no factual details about specific actions taken, or not taken, by any Defendant. Thus, as with CV 125-144, Plaintiff would be required to amend his original pleading in the above-captioned case as well.! As Plaintiff has already complied with the instruction to amend his complaint in CV 125-144 and has the opportunity to litigate his claims in CV 125-144 that are admittedly the same as the claims removed from state court in CV 125-191, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS this case be DISMISSED without prejudice and CLOSED. Plaintiff's claims should proceed in the normal course of business in CV 125-144. None of the Defendants named in CV 125-191 should be required to further defend any claims raised against them based on the allegations raised in the complaint, (doc. no. 1-1), unless or until ordered by this Court, either in this case or upon screening of the amended complaint in CV 125-144. SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of August, 2025, at Augusta, Georgia.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

‘Notwithstanding Defendants paid the filing fee to remove CV 125-191, the case is still subject to screening by the Court to determine whether there are any viable claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see also Leal v. Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 254 F.3d 1276, 1277-78 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam); Al-Amin v. Donald, 165 F. App’x 733, 736 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).