# Thomas Jr. v. Morales

> District Court, M.D. Florida · July 12, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10642343

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** July 12, 2024
- **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/10642343

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that officers allegedly threatening to kill an inmate is not cognizable under Section 1983
- holding that “disrespectful and assaultive comments,” which allegedly denied prisoner “peace of mind,” is not an Eighth Amendment violation
- holding that allegations of mere verbal abuse do not present an actionable Section 1983 claim
- concluding that a prisoner’s allegations about prison staff harassment generally does not state a constitutional violation

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

DERREL L. THOMAS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v. CASE NO. 8:24-cv-638-SDM-TGW
OFFICER MORALES,
CORPORAL JONES,

Defendants.
/
ORDER
Thomas’s complaint alleges that the defendants violated his civil rights during his
pre-trial detention in the Hernando County Detention Center. Thomas moves for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2) The Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)
requires dismissal of an in forma pauperis prisoner’s case “if the allegation of poverty is
untrue” or if the case “is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Although the complaint is entitled to a generous
interpretation, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (per curiam), this pro se complaint
lacks merit under this standard.
Thomas alleges that he was in his cell playing cards with his cellmates when

Officer Morales approached the cell, called Thomas, and handcuffed him. While
escorting Thomas to another area, Officer Morales allegedly “grabbed me by my arm
and pushed me into corridor 22” where Thomas was locked inside a “cage.” (Doc. 1 at
6) Thomas alleges that during this process defendants Officer Morales and Corporal
Jones used foul language and verbally threatened Thomas, such as “I’ll have you

handled” and “sign up at my gym and I’ll beat your ass.” Thomas admits that he “was
not physically harmed but [asserts that he was] mentally and emotionally damaged.”
(Doc. 1 at 6) Thomas requests both damages of “$40,000 for my pain and suffering”
and the “impos[ition] of some kind of sanctions and reprimand” for the two officers.
(Doc. 1 at 6) These facts fail to assert a claim actionable under Section 1983.

First, although unprofessional and offensive, neither harassment nor verbal
abuse alone is unconstitutional conduct. “Derogatory, demeaning, profane,
threatening or abusive comments made by an officer to an inmate, no matter how
repugnant or unprofessional, do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.”
Edwards v. Gilbert, 867 F.2d 1271, 1274 n.1 (11th Cir. 1989). Accord Hernandez v. Florida

Dep’t of Corr., 281 F. App’x 862, 866 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding (1) that plaintiff’s
allegations of verbal abuse and threats by prison officials did not state a constitutional
claim because the defendants never carried out the threats and (2) that “verbal abuse
alone is insufficient to state a constitutional claim”). Other circuits have similar

precedent. See, e.g., Bender v. Brumley, 1 F.3d 271, 274 n.4 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that
allegations of mere verbal abuse do not present an actionable Section 1983 claim); Ivey
v. Williams, 832 F.2d 950, 955 (6th Cir. 1987) (holding that verbal abuse does not
violate the Eighth Amendment); McDowell v. Jones, 990 F.2d 433, 434 (8th Cir. 1993)
(concluding that a prisoner’s allegations about prison staff harassment generally does
not state a constitutional violation); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996)
(holding that “disrespectful and assaultive comments,” which allegedly denied prisoner
“peace of mind,” is not an Eighth Amendment violation); Swoboda v. Dubach, 992 F.2d

286, 290 (10th Cir. 1993) (recognizing that officers allegedly threatening to kill an
inmate is not cognizable under Section 1983).
Second, a reprimand is not a form of relief available in a Section 1983 action,
and Thomas cannot recover compensatory damages more than nominal damages

because he sustained no actual injury. A physical injury is required under the Prisoner
Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), which states, “No Federal civil action
may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility,
for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of
physical injury . . . .” As explained in Mitchell v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,

294 F.3d 1309, 1312–13 (11th Cir. 2002), “[i]n 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.” See also Hughes v. Lott,
350 F.3d 1157, 1162 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Section 1997e(e), however, bars any claim
seeking compensatory damages for emotional distress suffered while in custody.”);

Akouri v. Fla. Dep’t of Transp., 408 F.3d 1338, 1342–46 (11th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that
absent any evidence proving compensatory damages, a court is justified in limiting a
plaintiff ’s award of nominal damages to one dollar). Consequently, even if he could
state a claim, Thomas would recover neither of the only two requested forms of relief.
As shown above, Thomas fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Amendment of the action would prove futile because Thomas can state no valid
Section 1983 claim for relief. See Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001)
(“A district court need not, however, allow an amendment (1) where there has been
undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, or repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed; (2) where allowing amendment would cause undue
prejudice to the opposing party; or (3) where amendment would be futile.”).
The complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for failing to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Prisoner Consent Form (Doc. 3),
construed as a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, is DENIED AS MOOT.
The clerk must enter a judgment of dismissal against Thomas and CLOSE this case.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on July 12, 2024.
Adonai
STEVEN D. MERRYDAY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10642343. Public record. Not legal advice.