Lawrence v. Charles B. Webster Detention Center

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia
DecidedJanuary 10, 2025
Docket1:24-cv-00108
StatusUnknown

This text of Lawrence v. Charles B. Webster Detention Center (Lawrence v. Charles B. Webster Detention Center) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lawrence v. Charles B. Webster Detention Center, (S.D. Ga. 2025).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AUGUSTA DIVISION

DION ANTWON LAWRENCE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV 124-108 ) CHARLES B. WEBSTER DETENTION ) CENTER; LT. CHEATHAM; LT. ASHLEY; ) and SERGEANT CUYLER, ) ) Defendants.1 ) _________

O R D E R _________

Plaintiff, detained at Charles B. Webster Detention Center in Augusta, Georgia, has submitted to the Court for filing an amended complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Because he is proceeding IFP, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be screened to protect potential defendants. Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 785 (11th Cir. 1984) (per curiam); Al-Amin v. Donald, 165 F. App’x 733, 736 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). I. SCREENING THE AMENDED COMPLAINT In his amended complaint, Plaintiff names the following Defendants in their individual and official capacities: (1) Charles B. Webster Detention Center (“CBWDC”), (2) Lt.

1 The Court DIRECTS the CLERK to correct the spelling of Defendants Cheatham and Cuyler’s names on the docket in accordance with the above caption, which is consistent with Plaintiff’s amended complaint. (See doc. no. 15, pp. 1-3.) Cheatham, (3) Lt. Ashley, and (4) Sergeant Cuyler. (Doc. no. 15, pp. 2-3.) Taking all of Plaintiff’s allegations as true, as the Court must for purposes of the present screening, the facts are as follows. While detained at CBWDC, Plaintiff informed Lt. Cheatham and Sergeant Cuyler that

a group of inmates was going to kill him. (Id. at 4.) Despite this warning, Lt. Cheatham and Sergeant Cuyler placed Plaintiff in F-Pod, the same dorm as that group of inmates. (Id.) Lt. Cheatham and Sergeant Cuyler also hung up on plaintiff’s girlfriend when she advocated for Plaintiff’s placement in a dorm where he would be safe. (Id.) On July 29th, 2023, between 2:30 and 3:30 PM, the group of inmates set a fire in the dorm to “get to” Plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff warned Lt. Ashley that the group of inmates only set the fire to get to Plaintiff, but Lt. Ashley required Plaintiff to evacuate to the yard with the group of inmates anyway. (Id.) In the yard, plaintiff was stabbed multiple times in his head, neck, and arm by inmate Crawford. (Id. at 5.) As a result of his stab wounds, Plaintiff nearly lost his life and required emergency surgery to

restore blood flow to his brain. (Id.) For relief, Plaintiff requests monetary damages and “free my charges.” (Id. at 5.) Liberally construing Plaintiff’s allegations in his favor and granting him the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be derived from the facts alleged, the Court finds Plaintiff has arguably stated a viable claim for deliberate indifference to his safety against Defendants Cheatham, Cuyler, and Ashley. See Lane v. Philbin, 835 F.3d 1302, 1307-08 (11th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, process shall issue as to these defendants. In a companion Report and Recommendation, the Court recommends dismissal of Defendant CBWDC. II. INSTRUCTIONS IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that service of process shall be effected on Defendants Cheatham, Cuyler, and Ashley. The United States Marshal shall mail a copy of the amended complaint, (doc. nos. 14, 15), and this Order by first-class mail and request that each Defendant

waive formal service of the summons. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). Individual defendants have a duty to avoid unnecessary costs of serving the summons, and if a defendant fails to comply with the request for waiver, the defendant must bear the costs of personal service unless good cause can be shown for failure to return the waiver. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). A defendant whose return of the waiver is timely does not have to answer the amended complaint until sixty days after the date the Marshal mails the request for waiver. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(3). However, service must be effected

within ninety days of the date of this Order, and the failure to do so may result in the dismissal of any unserved defendant or the entire case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff is responsible for providing sufficient information for the Marshal to identify and locate each Defendant to effect service. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff shall serve upon the defendants, or upon their defense attorney(s) if appearance has been entered by counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document submitted to the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the papers to be filed a

certificate stating the date a true and correct copy of any document was mailed to the defendant or their counsel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5; Loc. R. 5.1. Every pleading shall contain a caption setting forth the name of the court, the title of the action, and the file number. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). Any paper received by a District Judge or Magistrate Judge that has not been properly filed with the Clerk of Court or that fails to include a caption or certificate of service will be returned. It is Plaintiff’s duty to cooperate fully in any discovery that may be initiated by the defendants. Upon being given at least five days’ notice of the scheduled deposition date, Plaintiff shall appear and permit his deposition to be taken and shall answer, under oath and solemn

affirmation, any question that seeks information relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. Failing to answer questions at the deposition or giving evasive or incomplete responses to questions will not be tolerated and may subject Plaintiff to severe sanctions, including dismissal of this case. The defendants shall ensure Plaintiff’s deposition and any other depositions in the case are taken within the 140-day discovery period allowed by this Court’s Local Rules. Plaintiff must pursue this case; if Plaintiff does not press the case forward, the Court may dismiss it for want of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Loc. R. 41.1. If Plaintiff wishes to obtain

facts and information about the case from the defendants, Plaintiff must initiate discovery. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37 (containing the rules governing discovery and providing for the basic methods of discovery). Plaintiff should begin discovery promptly and complete it within four months after the filing of the first answer of a defendant named in the amended complaint screened herein. Interrogatories are a practical method of discovery for pro se litigants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33. Interrogatories shall not contain more than twenty-five questions. Id. Plaintiff must have the

Court’s permission to propound more than one set of interrogatories to a party.

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

Related

Jamil A. Al-Amin v. James E. Donald
165 F. App'x 733 (Eleventh Circuit, 2006)
Rodney Manyon Lane v. Ted Philbin
835 F.3d 1302 (Eleventh Circuit, 2016)
Phillips v. Mashburn
746 F.2d 782 (Eleventh Circuit, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lawrence v. Charles B. Webster Detention Center, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-v-charles-b-webster-detention-center-gasd-2025.