Kolb v. Papillon

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida
DecidedMarch 22, 2021
Docket1:21-cv-21039
StatusUnknown

This text of Kolb v. Papillon (Kolb v. Papillon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kolb v. Papillon, (S.D. Fla. 2021).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 21-cv-21039-BLOOM

KENNETH WAYNE KOLB,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRANK PAPILLON, et al.,

Defendant. / ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff Kenneth Wayne Kolb’s Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (“Complaint”), ECF No. [1], and his Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (“Motion”), ECF No. [3]. For reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied and the Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Civil complaints filed by prisoners seeking in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 are subject to the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). In order to promote the speedy, just, and efficient administration of civil rights complaints subject to the PLRA, the court has established forms to be used by prisoners for filing civil rights actions. The court- approved form consists of (1) a cover sheet, (2) a complaint, (3) an application to proceed in forma pauperis, and (4) an authorization form. The authorization form, when completed by the plaintiff, directs the agency holding the plaintiff in custody to forward to the clerk of court a certified copy of the plaintiff’s institutional trust fund account and to disburse from the plaintiff’s account the full statutory filing fee in amounts specified by § 1915(b). Properly completing and filing the authorization form satisfies the plaintiff’s obligation under § 1915(a)(2) to submit a certified copy of the plaintiff’s trust fund account with the complaint. Plaintiff’s Motion is not on the proper form nor is it accompanied by a certified copy of his inmate account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint.1 Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Plaintiff may re-file his

Application using the court-approved form or he may pay the filing fee of $402.00 by the filing deadline. II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff alleges on September 2, 2020 at approximately 1:00-2:00 A.M., while handcuffed behind his back, Defendants C.O. Perez and Patterson were escorting Plaintiff to the shower. ECF No. [1] at ¶ 9. In violation of written security policy, Defendants had no contact with Plaintiff and instead followed closely behind Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff walked down a set of stairs leading to the showers, unassisted, and slipped in a puddle of standing water in front of the first shower. Id. at ¶ 11. Plaintiff struck his head on the concrete floor and suffered injuries to his face, including a gash

over his left eye that required stitches and a broken nose. Id. at ¶¶ 11-12. Plaintiff was escorted to medical shortly after the accident and told to stay overnight until a doctor arrived in the morning. Id. at ¶ 13. Defendants Perez and Patterson left plaintiff handcuffed to the infirmary bed, “all night bleeding for hours without treatment or calling a doctor that is required to be on 24 hour call.” Id. at ¶ 32 Defendant Dr. Frank Papillon gave Plaintiff stiches over his left eye and examined his nose but did not give him anything to treat that injury. Id. at ¶ 13. Plaintiff was then sent back to his confinement unit. Id. X-rays of his broken nose were never taken. Id. at ¶ 16.

1 Plaintiff provided an account statement but it was only for the period of January 1, 2021 – January 31, 2021. See ECF No. [3-1]. On September 9, 2020, with stitches in his eye, a swollen black eye, and a broken nose, Plaintiff was transferred from Dade Correctional Institute to Tomoka Correctional Institute. Id. at ¶ 15. Following the transfer, Plaintiff filed a series of grievances regarding the incident and subsequent medical care at Dade Correctional Institution. Id. at ¶¶ 16-27. As a result of his injury,

Plaintiff suffers from blurred vision, severe headaches, and constriction of his air passage where his nose is broken making it difficult for him to breathe. Id. at ¶ 12. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Papillon, Perez, and Patterson violated his Eighth Amendment rights and that their actions have caused “pain, suffering, physical injury, and emotional distress.” Id. at ¶¶ 30-31. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $20,000 and $10,000 in punitive damages against each defendant. Id. at ¶¶ 2-3. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), as partially codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii), requires courts to screen prisoner complaints and dismiss as frivolous claims that are “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory” or “whose factual contentions are

clearly baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); Pullen v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., No. 19-11797-C, 2019 WL 5784952, at *1 (11th Cir. Sept. 4, 2019) (“[A]n action is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or fact.”) (quoting Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002)). Under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a complaint may be dismissed if the court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Wright v. Miranda, 740 F. App’x 692, 694 (11th Cir. 2018). The standard for determining whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted is the same whether under section 1915(e)(2)(B) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Pullen, No. 19-11797-C, WL 5784952, at *1 (citing Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997)). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). There is no required technical form, but “each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).

The statement must “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quotation marks omitted). Thus, “a complaint must allege sufficient facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face.” Pullen, No. 19-11797-C, 2019 WL 5784952 at *1 (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). The “factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). Plaintiff is obligated to allege “more than mere labels and legal conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Quality Auto Painting Ctr. of Roselle, Inc. v. State Farm Indemnity Co., 917 F.3d 1249, 1262 (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555). However, a district court is not required to “rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order

to sustain an action.” Rodriguez, 794 F.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mitchell v. Farcass
112 F.3d 1483 (Eleventh Circuit, 1997)
Louis Napier v. Karen J. Preslicka
314 F.3d 528 (Eleventh Circuit, 2002)
Denton v. Hernandez
504 U.S. 25 (Supreme Court, 1992)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Bobby J. Anderson v. Alfred Hardman
241 F.3d 544 (Seventh Circuit, 2001)
Sims v. Hastings
375 F. Supp. 2d 715 (N.D. Illinois, 2005)
Allan Campbell v. Air Jamaica LTD
760 F.3d 1165 (Eleventh Circuit, 2014)
Burgos v. Hopkins
14 F.3d 787 (Second Circuit, 1994)
Graham v. Henderson
89 F.3d 75 (Second Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kolb v. Papillon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kolb-v-papillon-flsd-2021.