“In sum, our published precedents have affirmed district court dismissals of punitive damage claims under the [Prison Litigation Reform Act] because the plaintiffs failed to meet § 1997e(e)’s physical injury requirement.”
How later courts described this case
- “In sum, our published precedents have affirmed district court dismissals of punitive damage claims under the [Prison Litigation Reform Act] because the plaintiffs failed to meet § 1997e(e)’s physical injury requirement.”
- “In order to avoid dismissal under § 1997e(e), a prisoner’s claims for emotional or mental injury must be accompanied by allegations of physical injuries that are greater than de minimis.” (alteration added)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 21-cv-80517-BLOOM/Reinhart
LEE MITCHELL JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
LT. CASTILLO, et al.,
Defendants.
/
SCREENING ORDER ON THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Lee Mitchell Johnson’s Third
Amended Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights, ECF No. [46] (Third Amended Complaint”).
Plaintiff alleges violations of his constitutional rights arising from his confinement while a pre-
trial detainee at the West Detention Center at the Palm Beach County Jail. See generally id.
Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. [4], and is
therefore subject to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). See Farese v. Scherer, 342
F.3d 1223, 1228 (11th Cir. 2003). The Court previously screened Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No.
[1], and ordered several claims to proceed: excessive force against Cert Deputy Michael (“Cert
Dy. Michael”) in his individual capacity; and excessive force, failure to intervene, and supervisor
liability against Lieutenant Castillo, in her individual capacity. ECF No. [6].
Because the factual allegations underlying the instant claims against Defendants Cert Dy.
Michael and Lt. Castillo largely mirror the facts set forth in the initial Complaint, the Court’s
previous screening order allowing the claims against Defendants Cert Dy. Michael and Lt. Castillo
to proceed is unchanged. ECF No. [6]. For the reasons below, this action shall also proceed on
Plaintiff’s additional claims.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint adds a new defendant, Deputy Turner (“Dy.
Turner”), and alleges an additional claim of failure to intervene in his individual capacity.
Additionally, Plaintiff now seeks compensatory damages against all three Defendants.1
The Court previously summarized Plaintiff’s allegations from his Complaint:
Plaintiff filed this Complaint alleging that Defendants Lieutenant Castillo (“Lt.
Castillo) and Cert Deputy Michael (“Cert Dy. Michael”) violated his Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights when, at the direction of Lt. Castillo, Cert Dy.
Michael used unlawful force on Plaintiff. ECF No. [1] at 4. Plaintiff alleges that on
February 2, 2021 between 6:30-6:45 P.M., he was housed in unit F-209, a protective
custody cell at the West Detention Center. Id. at 7. Plaintiff was calling to Lt.
Castillo and trying to get his attention because the showers were dirty and “needed
to be cleaned by a trustee.” Id. After not receiving a response from Lt. Castillo for
over thirty minutes, Plaintiff stated, “I’ll write it [sic] and you up for not having our
showers cleaned cause this is a safety issue.” Id. (alteration added). Lt. Castillo then
started to walk toward Plaintiff’s cell, stopped, turned around, and left the unit only
to return ten minutes later with Cert Dy. Michael. Id.
ECF No. [6] at 1-2 (alterations in original; spelling of Defendant Cert Dy. Michael’s name
corrected). Plaintiff alleges that once Lt. Castillo and Cert Dy. Michael returned, Lt. Castillo
ordered Dy. Turner “to open [Plaintiff’s] cell door and stand in the doorway.” ECF No. [46] at 8.
The unlawful use of force event then unfolded as follows:
Lt. Castillo ordered Cert Dy. Michael to “choke [Plaintiff’s] [expletive] so he shuts
up.” Id. (alteration added). In violation of the jail’s maximum-security policy,
Defendants opened Plaintiff’s cell without first securing his hands in handcuffs
through the access port. Id. at 7-8. Cert Dy. Michael then ordered Plaintiff to get to
the back of his cell. Id. at 7. Cert Dy. Michael then, with his right hand, grabbed
Plaintiff by the throat and slammed him on his bunk, choking Plaintiff until he could
not breathe. Id. As Plaintiff was being choked, Lt. Castillo stood less than a foot
away from Cert Dy. Michael and stated:
You still wanna [sic] write me up? When you gonna [sic] learn
1 The Court previously noted that although Plaintiff did not raise compensatory damages in his Complaint
he “may amend his complaint at a later stage of the proceeding to add a request for compensatory damages
in the prayer for relief section.” ECF No. [6] at 8.
Johnson, you can’t win[.] Stop writing [expletive] up or you’re
gonna [sic] keep getting hurt[.] You’re in a no-win, it [is your] word
against ours[.] Now stop writing [expletive] grievance[s], drop this
lawsuit [expletive] or you may end up going home – in a box.
Id. at 8 (alterations added). Plaintiff states the incident was caught on camera. Id. ECF No. [6] at
1-2 (alterations in original; spelling of Defendant Cert Dy. Michael’s name corrected). During the
attack, Lt. Castillo stood next to Cert Dy. Michael and Dy. Turner stood two feet away in the cell
doorway “blocking the view of the cameras and other inmates[.]” ECF No. [46] at 9-10 (alteration
added). Neither Lt. Castillo nor Dy. Turner attempted to intervene and stop Cert Dy. Michael’s
excessive use of force on Plaintiff. Id.
As a result of the excessive force incident, Plaintiff suffers from constant neck pain and
pain in his upper back. Id. at 11. He states that he has submitted sick calls for medical treatment
but as of the filing of the Third Amended Complaint, he has been refused all medical treatment.
Id. Plaintiff also alleges psychological injuries. Id. He states he is in constant fear that Lt. Castillo
will have him killed if he does not drop the pending lawsuits.2 Id. Plaintiff only sleeps a few hours
a night and only eats bread and packaged cookies out of fear that correctional staff will poison his
food. Id. Plaintiff seeks $200,000.00 in punitive damages and $200,000.00 in compensatory
damages against each defendant. Id. at 12.
2 Plaintiff has six other pending civil rights actions against employees of the West Detention Center at the
Palm Beach County Jail challenging the conditions of his confinement and alleging defendants used
unlawful force, failed to keep him safe from harm, or retaliated against him for filing lawsuits and
grievances. See Johnson v. Gordon, No. 21-cv-81257-WILLIAMS (S.D. Fla. July 21, 2021) (§ 1983 suit
alleging on July 7, 2021 defendant refused to feed Plaintiff or allow him to call his attorney in retaliation
for filing lawsuits); Johnson v. McKay, No. 21-cv-81198-ROSENBERG (S.D. Fla. July 8, 2021) (§ 1983
suit alleging on January 26, 2021 Plaintiff was threatened in retaliation for filing lawsuits); Johnson v.
Humphries, No. 21-80985-CANNON (S.D. Fla. Jun. 1, 2021) (§ 1983 suit raising allegations of deliberate
indifference and retaliation against Plaintiff for filing grievances within the detention facility); Johnson v.
Alfred, No. 20-cv-81961-COOKE (S.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2020) (§ 1983 suit arising from an October 2, 2020
unlawful use of force incident); Johnson v. Lindor, No. 20-cv-81032-MIDDLEBROOKS (S.D. Fla. July 2,
2020) (§ 1983 suit alleging failure to keep Plaintiff safe from harm); Johnson v. Williams, No. 20-cv-80709-
RUIZ (S.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2020) (§ 1983 suit for two incidents on April 7, 2019 involving the unlawful use
of force and failure to intervene).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a complaint must be dismissed if the court determines
that the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Wright v. Miranda, 740 F.
App’x 692, 694 (11th Cir. 2018). In reviewing the complaint under § 1915(e), the court takes the
allegations as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hughes v. Lott,
350 F.3d 1157, 1159-60 (11th Cir. 2003); Maps v. Miami Dade State Att’y, 693 F. App’x 784, 785
(11th Cir. 2017).
To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that he was deprived of a
federal right by a person acting under color of state law. Griffin v. City of Opa-Locka, 261 F.3d
1295, 1303 (11th Cir. 2001). A dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is
governed by the same standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483,
1490 (11th Cir. 1997). Thus, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the court may dismiss a
complaint that fails “to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (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, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). Pro se pleadings are held
to a less stringent standard than a pleading drafted by an attorney and are liberally construed. See,
e.g., Waldman v. Conway, 871 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th Cir. 2017); Torres v. Miami-Dade Cnty.,
734 F. App’x 688, 691 (11th Cir. 2018). That leniency, however, “does not give courts license to
serve as de facto counsel or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.”
Shuler v. Ingram & Assocs., 441 F. App’x 712, 716 n.3 (11th Cir. 2011).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Failure to intervene claim against Dy. Turner
Plaintiff alleges that Dy. Turner was standing two feet away from Cert Dy. Michael during
the excessive force incident. ECF No. [46] at 10. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that Dy. Turner
blocked the view of security cameras and other inmates from witnessing the excessive force
incident. Id. “[W]hen an officer is not a participant in the excessive force, he can still be liable if
he fails to take reasonable steps to protect the victim.” Ledlow v. Givens, 500 F. App’x 910, 914
(11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (citing Skrtich v. Thornton, 280 F.3d 1295, 1301 (11th Cir. 2002)).
However, the non-intervening officer must be in a position where intervention is possible. See
Hadley v. Gutierrez, 526 F.3d 1324, 1330-31 (11th Cir. 2008); Johnson v. White, 725 F. App’x
868, 878 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam).
At this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff’s allegations against Dy. Turner show that he had
the time and opportunity to protect Plaintiff from Cert Dy. Michaels’s excessive force because he
stood two feet away from Plaintiff inside the cell at the time of the incident. ECF [46] at 10.
Consequently, Plaintiff’s failure to intervene claim against Dy. Turner shall proceed.
B. Punitive Damages3
Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against Dy. Turner. Id. at 12. Punitive damages may be
awarded under § 1983 when a defendant’s conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or
intent or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.
See Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1983). “While the Smith Court determined that it was
unnecessary to show actual malice to qualify for a punitive award, . . . its intent standard, at a
minimum, required recklessness in its subjective form.” Kolstad v. American Dental Ass’n, 527
U.S. 526, 536 (1999) (internal citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff has alleged that Dy. Turner’s
unconstitutional acts were done in retaliation for filing lawsuits. ECF No. [46] at 8-11.
Accordingly, the Third Amended Complaint plausibly alleges that Dy. Turner’s conduct was
3 The Court previously ordered Plaintiff’s punitive damages claims against Cer. Dy. Michael and Lt.
Castillo to proceed. ECF No. [6] at 8.
malicious and is sufficient at this stage to support a claim for punitive damages.
C. Psychological injury4
Plaintiff further alleges he has suffered psychological trauma as a result of Dy. Turner’s
conduct. Id. at 11. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), in order to recover for mental or emotional
injury suffered while in custody, a prisoner bringing a § 1983 action must demonstrate more than
a de minimis physical injury. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e)(3); see also Al-Amin v. Smith, 637 F.3d
1192, 1199 (11th Cir. 2011) (“In sum, our published precedents have affirmed district court
dismissals of punitive damage claims under the [Prison Litigation Reform Act] because the
plaintiffs failed to meet § 1997e(e)’s physical injury requirement.”); Mitchell v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp., 294 F.3d 1309, 1312-13 (11th Cir. 2002) (“In order to avoid dismissal
under § 1997e(e), a prisoner’s claims for emotional or mental injury must be accompanied by
allegations of physical injuries that are greater than de minimis.” (alteration added)). At this
preliminary stage, Plaintiff has alleged greater than de minimis physical injury resulting from the
incident. 5 Given the nature of the physical injuries alleged, Plaintiff’s claim based on
psychological trauma caused by Dy. Turner’s failure to intervene during the excessive force
incident shall proceed.
D. Compensatory Damages
Plaintiff claims he suffered physical injury to his neck and upper back. ECF No. [46] at 11.
4 The Court previously permitted Plaintiff’s psychological injury claims against Cert Dy. Michael and Lt.
Castillo to proceed. ECF No. [6] at 8.
5 Even if it is later established that the injuries suffered from the alleged unlawful use of force and failure
to intervene are no more than de minimus, the Eleventh Circuit has made clear that “[n]ominal damages are
appropriate if a plaintiff establishes a violation of a fundamental constitutional right, even if he cannot prove
actual injury sufficient to entitle him to compensatory damages.” Williams v. Brown, 347 F. App’x 429,
436 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1162 (11th Cir. 2003)) (alteration in original).
“Thus, a prayer for nominal damages is not precluded by § 1997e(e).” Id., (quoting Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d
1225, 1271 (11th Cir. 2007)).
Case No. 21-cv-80517-BLOOM/Reinhart
He seeks $200,000.00 in compensatory damages against each Defendant. Jd. at 12. Given the
nature of the physical injuries alleged, at this stage in the proceeding Plaintiff's compensatory
damages claims shall proceed.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Plaintiff's failure to intervene, psychological injury, and punitive damages claims
against Deputy Turner in his individual capacity shall PROCEED.
2. Plaintiff's compensatory damages claims against Deputy Turner, Cert Deputy Michael,
and Lieutenant Castillo shall PROCEED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on July 23, 2021.
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Lee Mitchell Johnson, Pro Se
#0384240
West Detention Center
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. Box
Belle Glade, FL 33430