IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

DUBLIN DIVISION

MICHAEL A. COX, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV 322-184 ) TARMARSHE SMITH; DESIREE JONES; ) JERMAINE WHITE; VERONICA ) STEWART; LT. SALDANA, Macon State ) Prison Night Shift Supervisor; COUNSELOR ) WALKER, Macon State Prison; ) SGT. MOORE, Telfair State Prison Tier ) Sergeant OIC; and KAREN THOMAS, ) ) Defendants. ) _________

O R D E R _________

Plaintiff, incarcerated at Telfair State Prison in Helena, Georgia filed this case pursuant to

. Because he is proceeding IFP, Plaintiff’s complaint must be screened to protect potential defendants. Phillips v. Mashburn,

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

(11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). I. SCREENING THE COMPLAINT A. BACKGROUND Plaintiff names the following Defendants in his complaint: (1) Tarmarshe Smith, Warden of Macon State Prison (“MSP”), (2) Desiree Jones, MSP Deputy Warden of Business Administration, (3) MSP Counselor Walker, (4) Lieutenant Saldana, MSP Night Shift Supervisor, (5) Jermaine White, Warden of Telfair State Prison (“TSP”), (6) Veronica Stewart, TSP Deputy Warden of Security, (7) Karen Thomas, TSP Unit Manager, and (8) TSP Tier Sergeant OIC Moore. (Doc. no. 1, pp. 1, 4; doc. no. 6.) In a thirteen-page statement of claim, Plaintiff asserts an array of unrelated claims against these Defendants for events taking place over the span of nine months at two different prisons.

(See doc. no. 5-18.) His allegations range widely with little overlap of facts and parties. For example, at MSP, he alleges retaliatory transfer, inadequate staffing and safety measures, and excessive force. (Id. at 5-10.) He also alleges failure to comply with disciplinary procedures at both MSP and TSP, and, at TSP alone, improper limits on commissary and legal supplies, lack of ice, denial of withdrawal requests, and inadequate outside time. (Id. at 10-17.) He punctuates each claim with unexplained, factually unsupported legal conclusions repeating buzzwords such as “campaign of harassment,” “retaliation,” “adverse action,” and “casual connection.” (See, e.g., id. at 6.)

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) (per curiam) (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 to 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 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. Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner,

(1972) (per curiam). 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. Pleading Deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Complaint

As explained, Plaintiff names eight defendants in a wide variety of unrelated claims at two different prisons over the course of nine months, replete with unexplained theories of liability and legal buzzwords. Plaintiff’s complaint amounts to the quintessential shotgun pleading that has been soundly condemned by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. See, e.g., Byrne v. Nezhat,

, 1131 (11th Cir. 2001) (“[S]hotgun pleadings, if tolerated, harm the court by impeding its ability to administer justice.”), abrogated on other grounds by Douglas Asphalt Co. v. QORE, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2011); Magluta v. Samples,

, 1284-

85 (11th Cir. 2001) (refusing to address and decide serious constitutional issues on the basis of a “quintessential ‘shotgun’ pleading of the kind [the Eleventh Circuit] ha[s] condemned repeatedly. . . . It is in no sense the ‘short and plain statement of the claim’ required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”); see also Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off.,

(11th Cir. 2015) (discussing types of shotgun pleadings, including those “guilty of the venial sin of being replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action”).

Moreover, it is well settled that a plaintiff may not join unrelated claims and various defendants unless the claims arise “out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). In its current form, Plaintiff’s complaint joins unrelated claims and defendants in clear violation of Rule 20. Most obviously, the claims arising out of his imprisonment at MSP do not arise out of the same or series of transactions

or occurrences as the claims arising out of his imprisonment at TSP. If Plaintiff wants relief against officials at MSP, he should file suit against them in the Middle District of Georgia. II. LEAVE TO AMEND The Court recognizes, however, that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and will therefore give him an opportunity to attempt to cure his pleading deficiencies by amending his complaint. See Silberman v. Miami Dade Transit,

(11th Cir. 2019) (explaining pro se plaintiff must be given one chance to amend to cure pleading deficiencies prior to dismissal). Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to amend his complaint to include all of his allegations in one document, within fourteen days of the date of this Order. The Court DIRECTS the CLERK to attach a standard form complaint used by incarcerated

litigants in the Southern District of Georgia, stamped with this case number, to Plaintiff’s service copy of this Order. The statement of claim must not exceed six handwritten pages attached to the standard form. See Goodison v. Washington Mut. Bank,

(11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (affirming the dismissal of a case where the plaintiff failed to heed the pleading instructions from the court that she was to re-draft her complaint to make it more concise); see also London v. Georgia Dep’t of Corr., CV 502-107, doc. no. 10 (M.D. Ga. May 10, 2002) (directing that amended complaint shall not exceed six handwritten pages).

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff should only include claims against TSP officials for transactions and occurrences during his imprisonment at TSP. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). He shall not re-allege claims arising from events at MSP or concerning defendants located therein. Doing so will result in dismissal of those claims and defendants from this case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue this case, he MUST file an amended complaint in accordance with the instructions in this Order. The amended complaint must be printed legibly

so that the Court may discern Plaintiff’s claims, and it will supersede and replace in its entirety the previous pleading filed by Plaintiff. See Hoefling v. City of Miami,

(11th Cir. 2016); Lowery v. Ala. Power Co.,

(11th Cir. 2007) (“[A]n amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and becomes the operative pleading in the case.”). It must contain a caption that clearly identifies, by name, each individual that Plaintiff is suing in the present lawsuit. Furthermore, the body of Plaintiff’s amended complaint must contain sequentially numbered paragraphs containing only one act of misconduct per paragraph. The numbered paragraphs in his amended complaint should include information such as: (i) the alleged act of misconduct; (ii) the date on which such misconduct occurred; (iii) the names of each and every individual who participated in such misconduct; and (iv)

where appropriate, the location where the alleged misconduct occurred. While Plaintiff may attach exhibits to his amended complaint, he shall not incorporate them by reference as a means of providing the factual basis for his amended complaint. For example, Plaintiff should not simply state, “See attached documents.” Plaintiff must name the individuals whom he seeks to include as Defendants herein in both the caption and the body of his amended complaint; he may not rely on the fact that individuals are named in the exhibits attached to his amended complaint as a means of including such persons as defendants to this

lawsuit. The Court will not independently examine exhibits that Plaintiff does not specifically reference (by the exhibit’s page number) in his amended complaint. Plaintiff is further cautioned that no portion of any prior pleading shall be incorporated into his amended complaint by reference. Moreover, Plaintiff shall submit only one amended complaint in accordance with the terms of this Order. Therefore, within fourteen days of the undersigned date, Plaintiff shall state in the single amended complaint filed in accordance with the terms of this Order all claims that he wishes the Court to consider as a basis for awarding the relief sought. Once Plaintiff has complied with the conditions of this Order, the Court will

review the amended complaint to determine which, if any, claims are viable and which, if any, Defendant should be served with a copy of the amended complaint. If no response is timely received from Plaintiff, the Court will presume that he desires to have this case voluntarily dismissed and will recommend dismissal of this action, without prejudice. Plaintiff is cautioned that while this action is pending, he shall immediately inform this Court of any change of address. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this case. SO ORDERED this 17th day of April, 2023, at Augusta, Georgia.

BRIAN K. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA