The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JOSEPH ERIC BOBET,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 2:22-cv-137-JES-NPM
DIONISIO, PEREZ, BROWN, and
RIMBY,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Joseph Eric Bobet’s Amended
Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Doc. #5). Bobet—a
prisoner of the Florida Department of Corrections—claims four
prison officials used excessive and unnecessary force against him
in violation of the Eighth Amendment. He brings this action under
42 U.S.C. § 9183. United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P.
Mizell granted Bobet leave to proceed in forma pauperis, so the
Court must review the Complaint to determine if it is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary damages from
anyone immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
For the purposes of this review, the Court accepts Bobet’s
allegations as true and recounts the facts as stated in the
Complaint. On September 18, 2021, Defendants were escorting
Bobet—who was handcuffed—back to his cell after his shower. Bobet
noticed some of his belongings on the floor of the dayroom and
notified Perez. Perez said he would bring Bobet the items after
he returned to his cell. Bobet refused and said, “I will go back
to the shower.” (Doc. #5 at 7). Dionisio came to assist Perez
and ordered Bobet to move towards his cell. Bobet refused by
“dropping his weight.” (Id.)
Rimby and Bowen also ordered Bobet to enter his cell, and
Dionisio called Bobet a “pussy ass punk.” (Id.) Bobet grabbed
the staircase rail and said “all of y’all pussy playing this game
with me in cuffs.” (Id.). Dionisio forced Bobet’s arm free and
threw him to the floor. Bobet got up, grabbed the rail again, and
said “your [sic] a bitch, all of you officers!” (Id. at 8).
Defendants tore Bobet away from the rail and forced him into his
cell. One of the Defendants kicked Bobet in his back, Dionisio
and Rimby lifted Bobet by his arms and forced him onto his bunk,
and Dionisio choked him. Other officers intervened and escorted
Dionisio away from Bobet.
A nurse examined Bobet and found no visible injuries, though
Bobet complained of pain in his head, back, and shoulders. Bobet
has since noticed several bruises and still has pain in his
shoulder and wrist. Bobet now sues Defendants for compensatory
and punitive damages.
“[N]ot every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to
a federal cause of action.” Hudson v. Mcmillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9
(1992). The core judicial inquiry in an excessive-force case is
“whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or
restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause
harm.” Sconiers v. Lockhart, 946 F.3d 1256, 1265 (11th Cir. 2020)
(quoting Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010)).
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), “a prisoner
may not recover monetary damages (compensatory or punitive) ‘for
mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a
prior showing of physical injury.’” Furman v. Warden, 827 F.
App’x 927, 933 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting 42 U.S.C. 1997e(e))).
The Eleventh Circuit interprets the PLRA to mean that “an
incarcerated plaintiff cannot recover either compensatory or
punitive damages for constitutional violations unless he can
demonstrate a (more than de minimis) physical injury.” Brooks v.
Warden, 800 F.3d 1295, 1307 (11th Cir. 2015). Injuries that
reflect “no more than the kind of routine discomfort associated
with incarceration fail to satisfy the de minimis threshold.”
Furman, 827 F. App’x at 933.
Bobet’s claim fails because he does not allege that he
suffered greater than de minimis injury as a result of excessive
force. Bobet prompted the use of force when he refused Defendants’
orders to return to his cell and physically resisted by dropping
his weight and grasping a rail. Defendants’ use of force to pry
his hands off the rail and get him into his cell was reasonable.
While this force could plausibly have caused lingering pain in
Bobet’s shoulder and wrist, Bobet’s claim fails because the force
was not excessive.
Two alleged uses of force might satisfy the “sadistic and
malicious” standard-Bobet’s claims that a Defendant kicked him in
the back and Dionisio choked him. But Bobet has not alleged any
greater-than-de-minimis injury caused by either.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED :
Plaintiff Joseph Eric Bobet’s Complaint for Violation of
Civil Rights (Doc. #5) is DISMISSED without prejudice. Bobet may
file a second amended complaint no later than May 19, 2022. If
Bobet does not timely file a second amended complaint, the Court
will close this case without further notice. The Clerk is DIRECTED
to mail Bobet a civil rights complaint form bearing the above-
captioned case number and the title “Second Amended Complaint.”
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this Ath day of
May 2022.
0 x
off le hy ) Ah Tok
JGHN E. STEELE
SHNIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SA: FTMP-1
Copies:
Counsel of Record