TAYLOR v. PENNYCUFF

• Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
• Decided: February 25, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-00437
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

JIMMY TAYLOR, : : Plaintiff : : CASE NO. 5:24-cv-00437-MTT-CHW VS. : : Deputy GREG PENNYCUFF, : : PROCEEDINGS UNDER 42 U.S.C. §1983 Defendant : BEFORE THE U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE ____________________________

ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Jimmy Taylor, a prisoner at Wheeler Correctional Facility in Alamo, Georgia, filed a document which appears to be a civil rights complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 10. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, but he is ORDERED to recast his Complaint on the Court’s standard form if he wishes to proceed with this action. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee or security therefor pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). ECF No. 10. As it appears Plaintiff is unable to pay the cost of commencing this action, his application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby GRANTED. However, even if a prisoner is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis, he must nevertheless pay the full amount of the $350.00 filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). If the prisoner has sufficient assets, he must pay the filing fee in a lump sum. If sufficient assets are not in the account, the court must assess an initial partial filing fee based on the assets

available. Despite this requirement, a prisoner may not be prohibited from bringing a civil action because he has no assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). In the event the prisoner has no assets, payment of the partial filing fee prior to filing will be waived. Plaintiff’s submissions indicate that he is unable to pay the initial partial filing fee. See ECF No. 11. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that his complaint be filed and that

he be allowed to proceed without paying an initial partial filing fee. I. Directions to Plaintiff’s Custodian Hereafter, Plaintiff will be required to make monthly payments of 20% of the deposits made to his prisoner account during the preceding month toward the full filing fee. The clerk of court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to the facility in which

Plaintiff is imprisoned. It is ORDERED that the warden of the institution wherein Plaintiff is incarcerated, or the sheriff of any county wherein he is held in custody, and any successor custodians, shall each month cause to be remitted to the Clerk of this Court twenty percent (20%) of the preceding month’s income credited to Plaintiff’s account at said institution until the $350.00 filing fee has been paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

In accordance with provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Plaintiff’s custodian is hereby authorized to forward payments from the prisoner’s account to the Clerk of Court each month until the filing fee is paid in full, provided the amount in the

2 account exceeds $10.00. It is ORDERED that collection of monthly payments from Plaintiff’s trust fund account shall continue until the entire $350.00 has been collected,

notwithstanding the dismissal of Plaintiff’s lawsuit or the granting of judgment against him prior to the collection of the full filing fee. II. Plaintiff’s Obligations Upon Release Plaintiff should keep in mind that his release from incarceration/detention does not release him from his obligation to pay the installments incurred while he was in custody. Plaintiff remains obligated to pay those installments justified by the income in his prisoner

trust account while he was detained. If Plaintiff fails to remit such payments, the Court authorizes collection from Plaintiff of any balance due on these payments by any means permitted by law. Plaintiff’s Complaint may be dismissed if he is able to make payments but fails to do so or if he otherwise fails to comply with the provisions of the PLRA. PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), a federal court is required to conduct an initial screening of a prisoner complaint “which seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” Plaintiff’s pleading is ninety (90) pages long and mostly incoherent, making it difficult determine what passages are relevant to allegations against the named Defendant. See ECF No. 1. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure requires a civil complaint filed in this Court to set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks”. Plaintiff’s complaint is neither short nor plain.

3 Plaintiff’s complaint also fails to comply with Rule 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that a party must state its claims in paragraphs limited to a single

set of circumstances. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, he must recast his complaint on the Court’s required 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint form, stating his allegations and claims using clear and plain language. The recast complaint must contain a caption that distinctly identifies, by name, each individual that Plaintiff has a claim against and wishes to include as a Defendant in the present lawsuit. Plaintiff is to name only the individuals associated

with the claim or related claims that he is pursuing in this action. Plaintiff must provide enough facts to plausibly demonstrate that each Defendant’s actions or omissions resulted in a violation of his constitutional rights. It is also directed that, when drafting his statement of claims, Plaintiff list numbered responses to the following questions (to the extent possible) along with the name of each defendant:

(1) What did this Defendant do (or not do) to violate your rights? In other words: What was the extent of this Defendant’s role in the unconstitutional conduct? (2) Is the Defendant a supervisory official and if so, was he/she personally involved in the constitutional violation? If not, how did his/her actions otherwise cause the unconstitutional action? How do you know?1

1 Supervisory officials are not liable under § 1983 for unconstitutional acts based in respondeat superior or vicarious liability. See, e.g., Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2003); Hendrix v. Tucker, 535 F. App’x 803, 805 (11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted) (“The standard by which a supervisor is held liable in her individual capacity for the actions of a subordinate is extremely rigorous.”). A 4 (3) When and where did each action occur (to the extent memory allows)? (4) How were you injured because of this Defendant’s actions or inactions? (5) What permissible relief do you seek from this Defendant?

The general rule is that an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint. See Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1219 (11th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); Fritz v. Standard Sec. Life Ins. Co., 676 F.2d 1356, 1358 (11th Cir. 1982). Plaintiff’s recast complaint will take the place of his original pleadings, and any fact Plaintiff deems necessary to his lawsuit should be clearly stated in his recast complaint, even if Plaintiff

has previously alleged it in another filing. Plaintiff is cautioned that the opportunity to recast his complaint is not an invitation for him to include every imaginable claim that he may have regarding his incarceration. A plaintiff cannot join unrelated claims and/or defendants in a single action. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. A plaintiff may join defendants in one action only if he asserts “any

right to relief . . . against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. Fed.

prisoner must allege facts showing either that a supervisor personally participated in the alleged constitutional violation or that there is a causal connection between the actions of the supervising official and the alleged constitutional deprivation to state a claim against a prison official based solely on their supervisory position. See Asad v. Crosby, 158 F. App’x 166, 170-72 (11th Cir. 2005) (affirming district court’s dismissal of supervisory liability claims against two defendants who failed, inter alia, “to afford [plaintiff] relief during the grievance process,” because the record failed to show that they “personally participated in the alleged constitutional violations, or that there was a causal connection between the supervisory defendants’ actions and an alleged constitutional violation”). 5 R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1)(A)-(B). Whether multiple claims arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences depends on whether a “logical

relationship” exists between the claims. Rhodes v. Target Corp., 313 F.R.D. 656, 659 (M.D. Fla. 2016) (quoting Alexander v. Fulton Cnty., Ga., 207 F.3d 1303, 1323 (11th Cir. 2000), overruled on other grounds by Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2003)). For there to be a “logical relationship,” the claims must “arise from common operative facts.” Barber v. Am.’s Wholesale Lender, 289 F.R.D. 364, 367 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (citations omitted). Just because alleged events occur to one Plaintiff during the course of

his incarceration does not necessarily make claims about those allegations related. If the Plaintiff wishes to pursue unrelated claims, he is advised that these claims would be separate actions that must be filed in separate complaints on the Court’s required 42 U.S.C. § 1983 form and cannot be consolidated under the above Civil Action number. The filing fee must also be addressed in each new civil action.

In submitting his recast complaint to the Court, Plaintiff is to honestly and completely answer each question presented in the Court’s standard § 1983 complaint form, and he is to submit his answers on the form as feasible. Plaintiff should state his claims as simply as possible referring only to the relevant allegations against the named Defendants in this case. Plaintiff need not use legal terminology or cite any specific statute

or case law to state a claim, although the Court will presume that Plaintiff’s claims are brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless otherwise specified. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff is not to include any exhibits or attachments nor is he to file supplements that

6 otherwise amend or add to his complaint. THE COMPLAINT CANNOT BE LONGER THAN TEN (10) PAGES IN ITS ENTIRETY.

Upon review of the recast complaint, if Plaintiff makes a colorable constitutional claim against any Defendant, the Court will order service of process on that Defendant. If Plaintiff fails to link a named Defendant to a claim, the claim can be dismissed. If Plaintiff makes no allegations in the body of his complaint against a named Defendant, that Defendant can be dismissed. If Plaintiff raises unrelated claims under the same civil action number, the unrelated claims may be dismissed, or in the alternative, this entire civil

action may be dismissed for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Procedure or otherwise follow an order of the Court not to join unrelated claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for … failure to obey a court order.”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570

F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)); Toenniges v. Warden, 672 F. App’x 889, 890 (11th Cir. 2016) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing as improperly joined claims against two defendants which did not “arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)”); Skillern, 379 F. App’x at 860.

CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to recast the complaint on the Court’s standard § 1983 form as

7 instructed within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date of this Order. While this action is pending, Plaintiff is also required to immediately inform the Court in writing of any

change in his mailing address. Failure to fully and timely comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this civil action. The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward a copy of the § 1983 form marked with the case number of the above-captioned action to the Plaintiff for his use in complying with the Order of the Court.

SO ORDERED and DIRECTED, this 25th day of February, 2025.

s/ Charles H. Weigle Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge