IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AUGUSTA DIVISION

CHAD ROBERT BASSANT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV 119-167 ) WARDEN E. PHILIBIN; SGT. ESSER; ) UNIT MANAGER SNOWDEN; and DR. ) AUSTIN, ) ) Defendants. )

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an inmate at Augusta State Medical Prison in Grovetown, Georgia, has submitted to the Court for filing an amended complaint brought pursuant to

. Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”), Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be screened to protect potential defendants. Phillips v. Mashburn,

(11th Cir. 1984); Al-Amin v. Donald,

(11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). I. SCREENING OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT A. BACKGROUND Plaintiff names as Defendants: (1) Warden E. Philibin; (2) Sergeant Esser; (3) Unit Manager Snowden; and (4) Dr. Austin. (Doc. no. 14, pp. 2-3.) Taking all of Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true, as the Court must for purposes of the present screening, the facts are as follows. Generally, Plaintiff’s alleges he has claims for cruel and unusual punishment and constitutional due process violations, but his statement of claim is largely incoherent. (Id. at 12- 17.) Plaintiff does state he is awaiting discovery and documents to prove his claim, and he wishes to let the public know what is happening to him. (Id.) Plaintiff also requests the Court

grant an extension allowing him additional time to obtain documents and grievance records. (Id.) B. DISCUSSION 1. Legal Standard for Screening The complaint or any portion thereof may be dismissed if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief. See

(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). A claim is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). “Failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard as dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).” Wilkerson v. H & S, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2010) (citing Mitchell v. Farcass,

(11th Cir. 1997)). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the allegations in the complaint must “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). That is, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative 2 level.” Twombly,

. While Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not require detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the defendant unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal,

. A complaint is

insufficient if it “offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action,’” or if it “tenders ‘naked assertions’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’”

(quoting Twombly,

). In short, the complaint must provide a “‘plain statement’ possess[ing] enough heft to ‘sho[w] that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Twombly,

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). Finally, the court affords a liberal construction to a pro se litigant’s pleadings, holding them to a more lenient standard than those drafted by an attorney. Haines v. Kerner,

(1972); Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007). However, this liberal construction does not mean that the court has a duty to re-write the complaint. Snow v. DirecTV, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006). 2. Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim Against Defendants

The Eleventh Circuit has held a district court properly dismisses a defendant where a prisoner, other than naming the defendant in the caption of the complaint, fails to state any allegations that associate the defendant with the purported constitutional violation. Douglas v. Yates,

(11th Cir. 2008) (“While we do not require technical niceties in pleading, we must demand that the complaint state with some minimal particularity how overt acts of the defendant caused a legal wrong.”). Here, Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to allege any facts connecting Defendants to a constitutional violation. His statement of claim is largely incoherent, containing five pages of rambling 3 statements about the documents he needs and the people he wishes to inform about his prison conditions. He never alleges any facts concerning how Defendants caused him harm and offers no evidence connecting Defendants to any constitutional violation. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against any Defendant. Further, because Plaintiff fails to state a claim, his request for additional time to obtain discovery should be DENIED. (Doc. no. 14, p. 12.) Il. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS Plaintiff's request for additional time to obtain discovery be DENIED, (doc. no. 14, p. 12), his amended complaint be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and this civil action be CLOSED. SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of February, 2020, at Augusta, Georgia.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA