# Vaughn v. Alabama Department of Corrections (INMATE 2)

> District Court, M.D. Alabama · December 21, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10630438

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Alabama
- **Decided:** December 21, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10630438

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that unless the State of Alabama consents to suit or Congress rescinds its immunity, a plaintiff cannot proceed against the State or its agencies as the action is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment and “[t]his bar exists whether the relief sought is legal or equitable.”
- holding an inmate’s allegation of “a brief touch to his buttocks last[ing] mere seconds,” during a pat-down search, which was unaccompanied by “sexual comments or banter” did not satisfy objective component of Eighth Amendment claim

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

MARQUEZ CORNELIUS VAUGHN, )
#293 183, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 2:21-CV-800-WHA-SRW
) [WO]
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF )
CORRECTIONS, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case is before the Court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint filed by Marquez
Vaughn, an inmate incarcerated at the St. Clair Correctional Facility located in Springville,
Alabama. Vaughn alleges a violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from abuse.
The named defendants are the Alabama Department of Corrections and Officer Matthew
Cooke. Vaughn requests injunctive relief and damages. Upon review, the Court concludes
dismissal of this case prior to service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because Vaughn is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court reviews his complaint
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1 Under § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court must dismiss a complaint

1 The predecessor to this section is 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Even though Congress made many substantive
changes to § 1915(d) when it enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2)(B), the frivolity and the failure to state a claim
analysis contained in Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), was unaltered. Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d
1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001); Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 866 n.4 (6th Cir. 2000). However, dismissal
under § 1915(e)(2)(B) is now mandatory. Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1348-49.
proceeding in forma pauperis if it determines that an action is frivolous, malicious, fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant
immune from such relief. A claim is frivolous when it “has little or no chance of success,”

that is, when it appears “from the face of the complaint that the factual allegations are
clearly baseless or that the legal theories are indisputably meritless.” Carroll v. Gross, 984
F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993). A claim is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in law or
fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim is frivolous as a matter of
law where, among other things, the defendants are immune from suit, id. at 327, the claim

seeks to enforce a right that clearly does not exist, id., or there is an affirmative defense
that would defeat the claim, such as the statute of limitations, Clark v. Georgia Pardons &
Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636, 640 n.2 (11th Cir. 1990). Courts are accorded “not only the
authority to dismiss [as frivolous] a claim based on indisputably meritless legal theory, but
also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss

those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
A complaint may be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted “only if it is clear that no relief could be
granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Hishon
v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46

(1957)). A review on this ground is governed by the same standards as dismissals for failure
to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Jones v.
Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007). To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, “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) (internal quotation

marks omitted). To state a claim to relief that is plausible, the plaintiff must plead factual
content that “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. The allegations should present a “plain statement
possess[ing] enough heft to show that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Threadbare

recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When a successful affirmative defense, such as a
statute of limitations, appears on the face of a complaint, dismissal for failure to state a
claim is also warranted. Jones, 549 U.S. at 215.
Pro se pleadings “are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by

attorneys” and are liberally construed. Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir.
2006), abrogated on other grounds by Sconiers v. Lockhart, 946 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir.
2020). However, they “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. And a court does not have “license . . . to rewrite an
otherwise deficient pleading [by a pro se litigant] in order to sustain an action.” GJR

Investments v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998), overruled
on other grounds by Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
II. DISCUSSION
Vaughn asserts that, during his incarceration at the Easterling Correctional Facility
in November 2019,2 Officer Cooke conducted a routine search of him and his personal
property. Officer Cooke, Vaughn claims, touched him inappropriately while conducting
the search by “patting [him] on the buttocks and calling [him] a cupcake.” Vaughn

informed several prison officials about the incident, including a prison investigator whom
Vaughn indicates personally knew Officer Cooke. The investigator told Vaughn that he
believed Officer Cooke “meant no harm.” Vaughn was never contacted by prison officials
after he informed them of the incident and states that he never received any counseling.
Vaughn no longer feels comfortable being patted down or strip searched. Doc. 1 at 5.

A. The Alabama Department of Corrections
Vaughn names the Alabama Department of Corrections as a defendant. The
Eleventh Amendment bars suit directly against a state or its agencies, regardless of the
relief sought. Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984); Papasan
v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986) (holding that unless the State of Alabama consents to suit

or Congress rescinds its immunity, a plaintiff cannot proceed against the State or its
agencies as the action is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment and “[t]his bar exists
whether the relief sought is legal or equitable.”).
“[T]he Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from entertaining suits
by private parties against States and their agencies [or employees].” Alabama
v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 781, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978). There
are two exceptions to this prohibition: where the state has waived its
immunity or where Congress has abrogated that immunity. Virginia Office
for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247, 131 S.Ct. 1632, 1637–38,

2 According to the Complaint, the challenged incident occurred between November 3 and 17, 2019.
Doc. 1 at 5.

4
179 L.Ed.2d 675 (2011). “A State’s consent to suit must be ‘unequivocally
expressed’ in the text of [a] relevant statute.” Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S.
277, 131 S.Ct. 1651, 1658, 179 L.Ed.2d 700 (2011) (quoting Pennhurst State
Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 98, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67
(1984)). “Waiver may not be implied.” Id. Likewise, “Congress’ intent to
abrogate the States’ immunity from suit must be obvious from ‘a clear
legislative statement.’” Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 55,
116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996) (quoting Blatchford v. Native Vill.
of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775, 786, 111 S.Ct. 2578, 115 L.Ed.2d 686 (1991)).

Selensky v. Alabama, 619 F. App’x 846, 848–49 (11th Cir. 2015). Thus, neither the State
of Alabama nor its agencies may be sued unless the State has waived its Eleventh
Amendment immunity, see Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89,
100 (1984), or Congress has abrogated the State’s immunity, see Seminole Tribe v. Florida,
517 U.S. 44, 59 (1996).
Neither waiver nor abrogation applies here. The Alabama Constitution states
that “the State of Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of
law or equity.” Ala. Const. art. I, § 14. The Supreme Court has recognized
that this prohibits Alabama from waiving its immunity from suit. Pugh, 438
U.S. at 782, 98 S.Ct. 3057 (citing Ala. Const. art. I, § 14.)

Selensky, 619 F. App’x at 849. “Alabama has not waived its Eleventh Amendment
immunity in § 1983 cases, nor has Congress abated it.” Holmes v. Hale, 701 F. App’x 751,
753 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing Carr v. City of Florence, Ala., 916 F.2d 1521, 1525 (11th Cir.
1990)). Consequently, any claims lodged against the Alabama Department of Corrections
are frivolous and due to be dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
B. The Eighth Amendment Claim
Vaugh alleges that Officer Cooke subjected him to sexual abuse during a strip search

5
when the guard patted him on the buttocks and called him a cupcake. The Eleventh Circuit
has held that “severe or repetitive sexual abuse of a prisoner by a prison official” can violate
the Constitution. Boxer X, 437 F.3d at 1111. However, not “every malevolent touch by a

prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action.” Hudson v. McMillan, 503 U.S. 1, 9
(1992).
While the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Boxer X determined that the inmate’s
claims of sexual abuse were not “actionable” because he did not suffer “more than de
minimis injury,” 437 F.3d at 1111, in Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (2010), the Supreme

Court clarified that the purpose of Hudson was to “shift the ‘core judicial inquiry’ from the
extent of the injury to the nature of the force—specifically, whether [the force] was
nontrivial and ‘was applied . . . maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.’” Id. 559 U.S.
at 39 (quoting Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7). The Court explained that the Eighth Amendment
prohibits force that offends “contemporary standards of decency,” regardless of whether a

“significant injury” occurred. Wilkins, 559 U.S. at 37. Thus, while the holding in Boxer X
that “severe or repetitive sexual abuse of a prisoner by a prison official can violate the
Eighth Amendment” remains unchanged, the Eleventh Circuit recently determined that the
lack of a serious physical injury could no longer defeat an Eighth Amendment sexual abuse
claim based upon the Court’s decision in Wilkins. Sconiers, 946 F.3d at 1267. Therefore,

if a prisoner can show a prison official sadistically and maliciously subjected him to sexual
abuse, the objective element of an Eighth Amendment claim is satisfied despite a lack of a

6
serious physical injury. Id.
In this case, Vaughn maintains that Officer Cooke subjected him to sexual abuse
when the guard patted him on the buttocks during a search and called him a cupcake. While

the conduct alleged was inappropriate and unprofessional, the actions described by Vaughn
fail to rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation because they do not reflect either
severe or repeated sexual abuse. See Marks v. Keeton, No. 2:13-cv-620-WHA, 2013 WL
5934005, at *1 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 10, 2013) (finding that three separate and isolated
incidents of officer touching inmate’s private parts were not severe or repetitive sexual

abuse); Weeks v. Grady, No. 1:18-cv-1373-SDG-JKL, 2020 WL 6336186, at *4 (N.D. Ga.
Oct. 29, 2020) (finding a singular incident in which a jail deputy conducted a seemingly
unnecessary strip search was neither severe nor repetitive sexual abuse); Woodard v.
Eastberg, No. 4:20-cv-216-TKW-HTC, 2020 WL 4573371, at *3 (N.D. Fla. July 10, 2020)
(finding that “isolated episodes of harassment and touching, even where it involves a sexual

touch, do not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment claim”) (quotation marks and
citation omitted); see also Boddie, 105 F.3d at 861 (holding that a few incidents involving
verbal harassment, touching, and pressing without consent are not sufficiently serious to
constitute an Eighth Amendment violation); Berryhill v. Schriro, 137 F.3d 1073, 1076–77
(8th Cir. 1998) (holding an inmate’s allegation of “a brief touch to his buttocks last[ing]

mere seconds,” during a pat-down search, which was unaccompanied by “sexual comments
or banter” did not satisfy objective component of Eighth Amendment claim).

7
Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Vaughn’s claim of sexual abuse
does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. It therefore provides no basis
for relief in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS this case be
DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-
ii).

It is ORDERED that objections to the Recommendation may be filed on January
5, 2022. Any objections filed must specifically identify the factual findings and legal
conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which a party objects.
Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court.
Plaintiff is advised this Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not

appealable. Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and
recommendations in the Magistrate Judge’s report shall bar a party from a de novo
determination by the District Court of factual findings and legal issues covered in the report
and shall “waive the right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions” except upon grounds of plain error if

necessary in the interests of justice. 11TH Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark
Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790,

8
794 (11th Cir. 1989).
DONE, on this the 21st day of December, 2021.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker
Susan Russ Walker
United States Magistrate Judge

9

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10630438. Public record. Not legal advice.