“[T]he ninth amendment has never been recognized as independently securing any constitutional right, for purposes of pursuing a civil rights claim.”
How later courts described this case
- “[T]he ninth amendment has never been recognized as independently securing any constitutional right, for purposes of pursuing a civil rights claim.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
XAVIER LEE JONES,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 3:21-cv-902-BJD-JBT
UNKNOWN WELGTEN, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiff, Xavier Lee Jones, an inmate of the Federal Bureau of Prisons,
initiated this action pro se by filing a complaint for the violation of civil rights
(Doc. 1) based on an incident that occurred when he was housed at Hamilton
Correctional Institution Annex (HCI). After initially denying Plaintiff’s first
and second motions to proceed in forma pauperis, see Orders (Docs. 4, 14), the
Court ultimately permitted Plaintiff to proceed as a pauper, because his inmate
account was encumbered, making him unable to pay the filing fee, see Order
(Doc. 19). The Court also granted Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended
complaint. See Order (Doc. 19).
On May 2, 2022, the Clerk docketed Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc.
20; Am. Compl.), which now is before the Court for screening under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). In his amended complaint, Plaintiff names four
Defendants, two officers with the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC),
and two individuals who appear to have no affiliation with the FDOC.1 Am.
Compl. at 2-3. Plaintiff alleges “[t]he second [named] [D]efendant” called the
prison “to pay officers and inmate[s] to have [Plaintiff] [killed],” and an
unknown inmate stabbed him on December 16, 2018.2 Id. at 4, 5. Plaintiff
contends Defendants violated his rights under the First, Fifth, Eighth, and
Ninth Amendments. Id. at 3-4. As relief, he seeks damages. Id.
The PLRA requires a district court to dismiss a complaint if the court
determines the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b)(1). With respect
to whether a complaint “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,”
the language of the PLRA mirrors the language of Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, so courts apply the same standard in both contexts. Mitchell
v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997). See also Alba v. Montford,
517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008).
1 For the two non-officer Defendants, Plaintiff provides an address in
Miami, Florida, which an online search shows is a residence. See
https://www.google.com/maps (last visited May 6, 2022).
2 Plaintiff does not specify by name which Defendant allegedly called the
prison to arrange for him to be killed. The “second [named] Defendant” is one
of the non-FDOC-affiliated individuals. See Am. Compl. at 2.
2
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action” that amount to “naked
assertions” will not suffice. Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Moreover,
a complaint must “contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all
the material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal
theory.” Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir.
2001) (quoting In re Plywood Antitrust Litig., 655 F.2d 627, 641 (5th Cir. Unit
A Sept. 8, 1981)). In reviewing a complaint, a court must accept the plaintiff’s
allegations as true, liberally construing those by a plaintiff proceeding pro se,
but need not accept as true legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Even under a liberal construction, Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to
dismissal because he fails to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
See id. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that “a
person” acting under the color of state law deprived him of a right secured
under the United States Constitution or federal law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
First, as the Court previously informed Plaintiff, the Fifth Amendment governs
3
the conduct of federal actors, not state actors. See Order (Doc. 19) (citing
Buxton v. City of Plant City, Fla., 871 F.2d 1037, 1041 (11th Cir. 1989)).
Second, the Ninth Amendment provides, “The enumeration in the
Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people.” U.S. Const. amend. IX. This amendment is
“merely a rule of construction”; it does not confer any specific right that would
give rise to a constitutional claim. See Charles v. Brown, 495 F. Supp. 862, 864
(N.D. Ala. 1980). See also Strandberg v. City of Helena, 791 F.2d 744, 748 (9th
Cir. 1986) (“[T]he ninth amendment has never been recognized as
independently securing any constitutional right, for purposes of pursuing a
civil rights claim.”).
Third, Plaintiff alleges no facts that would implicate the First
Amendment. For instance, he does not allege any named Defendant retaliated
against him or interfered with his access to the courts.
Finally, while prison officials must “take reasonable measures to
guarantee the safety of the inmates,” they are not constitutionally liable for
every inmate-on-inmate attack. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 834
(1994). With respect to the two non-officer Defendants, Plaintiff alleges no facts
showing they are state actors. And, accepting as true that an unknown inmate
stabbed Plaintiff at HCI, see Am. Compl. at 5, Plaintiff does not allege facts
4
permitting the reasonable inference the two FDOC-affiliated Defendants knew
Plaintiff was at risk of harm but responded to the risk in an objectively
unreasonable manner, see Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844-45, 847. Notably, the
Defendant Plaintiff alleges paid officers or inmates to have Plaintiff killed is
one of the non-FDOC Defendants. See Am. Compl. at 2, 4. For these reasons,
Plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim under the Eighth Amendment, and his
amended complaint is due to be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing this case without
prejudice, terminate any pending motions, and close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 9th day of May
2022.
Zh. NO -
() ron
United States District Judge
Jax-6
Xavier Lee Jones