Lopez v. Garcia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

JONATHAN LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:22-cv-653-BJD-MCR

SERGEANT WALDO GARCIA,

Defendant.

______________________________

ORDER

I. Status

Plaintiff, Jonathan Lopez, an inmate of the Florida Department of

Corrections, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on a Third Amended

Complaint for the violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 37;

Compl.). The sole Defendant, Waldo Garcia, moves to dismiss the complaint

(Doc. 47; Def. Mot.). Plaintiff opposes the motion (Doc. 49; Pl. Resp.).

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Garcia, a Sergeant at New

River Correctional Institution (NRCI), “unlock[ed] his cell door allowing

inmate Korey Gunn to assault and stab him several times in the arm and

buttocks area.” Compl. at 6 (internal punctuation omitted). He asserts,

“[Defendant] Garcia could anticipate . . . [the] attack before it unfolded”

because corrections staff knew of Inmate Gunn’s “history of serious

disciplinary infractions” and “violent past.” Id. at 6–7. Plaintiff claims

Defendant Garcia violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment (failure to

protect and deliberate indifference). Id. It appears Plaintiff also alleges

Defendant Garcia violated prison policy by opening his cell door without

“having a second officer [present].” Id. at 7. According to Plaintiff, had

Defendant Garcia opened his cell door in compliance with relevant prison

policy, the second officer could have prevented the attack by Inmate Gunn. Id.

The incident occurred on March 19, 2021. Id. at 4. According to medical

records Plaintiff filed with his complaint, a nurse examined him on March 23,

2021, cleansed four “laceration[s],” applied bacitracin, and gave him a “TDAP

vaccine per protocol.” Id. at 15–18. No further treatment was warranted. Id. at

17. In a grievance Plaintiff filed on March 30, 2021, he noted that he was in

the “step-down” program, preparing to return to open population from having

been on close management (CM) status at Florida State Prison. Id. at 20. He

complained that Inmate Gunn was housed on the upper level of the dorm, and

he was housed on the lower level, and inmates on different levels were not to

be out of their cells “at the same time” unless they were “run arounds [inmate

orderlies] who fed breakfast,” which Inmate Gunn was not. Id. at 20–21. He

attributed the attack to “[a] lack of security and . . . total disregard for [his]

2

safety” and Defendant Garcia’s “direct violation of the institutional operation

procedures” regarding “electronically open[ing]” inmates’ cell doors. Id. at 21.

II. Motion to Dismiss Standard

A defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for a plaintiff’s “failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In

ruling on such a motion, the 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. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).1

Though detailed factual allegations are not required, Rule 8(a) demands “more

than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. A

plaintiff should allege enough facts “to raise a reasonable expectation that

discovery will reveal evidence” supporting the plaintiff’s claims. Bell Atl. Corp.

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007).

III. Motion & Analysis

Defendant Garcia argues Plaintiff fails to state a plausible Eighth

Amendment claim because Plaintiff does not allege he (Garcia) “had actual

1 Generally, a court must consider only the allegations in the complaint when

ruling on a motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). However, a court may consider

extrinsic evidence when ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion if a document incorporated

by reference in the complaint “is (1) central to the plaintiff’s claim and (2)

undisputed.” Day v. Taylor, 400 F.3d 1272, 1276 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Horsley v.

Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1134 (11th Cir. 2002)).

3

knowledge of any potential danger,” but rather alleges only that he should have

anticipated Inmate Gunn’s attack based on Gunn’s violent past. See Def. Mot.

at 7. Defendant Garcia invokes qualified immunity and moves to strike

Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief and punitive damages. Id. at 10–13.

In his response, Plaintiff argues he sufficiently alleges an Eighth

Amendment violation because he “clearly states [Defendant] Garcia was in

direct violation of the institutional operational procedures when he

electronically opened [Plaintiff’s] cell door.” See Pl. Resp. at 1. Plaintiff further

claims, “[T]here should be no dispute that employees at [NRCI] are aware that

[CM] inmates are sent to CMU [the close management unit] for bad behavior

…. In other words, Defendant should’ve been aware from his experience of

working on a CMU that any potential danger can transpire at any time.” Id. at

2. He claims that, had Defendant Garcia followed proper protocol and “had two

officers present” when Defendant Garcia remotely opened his cell door, “the

incident would not have occurred.” Id. at 3.

Prison officials sued in their individual capacities are “entitled to

qualified immunity for [their] discretionary actions unless [they] violated

‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

person would have known.’” Black v. Wigington, 811 F.3d 1259, 1266 (11th Cir.

2016) (quoting Case v. Eslinger, 555 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir. 2009)).

4

Qualified immunity allows government employees to exercise their official

duties without fear of facing personal liability. Alcocer v. Mills, 906 F.3d 944,

951 (11th Cir. 2018). The doctrine protects all but the plainly incompetent or

those who knowingly violate an inmate’s constitutional rights. Id. If a prison

official makes a decision that is later found to be constitutionally deficient, the

official is entitled to qualified immunity if the decision was based on a

reasonable misapprehension of the law. Taylor v. Riojas, 592 U.S. 7, 8 (2020)

(citing Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 (2004)).

Upon invoking qualified immunity, a defendant bears the initial burden

to demonstrate he was performing discretionary duties at the relevant times.

Alcocer, 906 F.3d at 951. Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant Garcia was

acting within the scope of his discretionary duties when the incident occurred.

See Pl. Resp. at 3. As such, the burden shifts to Plaintiff, who must point to

facts that, accepted as true, demonstrate Defendant Garcia violated a

constitutional right.

First, to the extent Plaintiff premises his claim solely upon Defendant

Garcia’s alleged violation of institutional operational procedures, he fails to

state a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under § 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

5

42 U.S.C. § 1983. “[T]he procedural requirements set out in [a state] regulation

are not themselves constitutional mandates.” Magluta v. Samples, 375 F.3d

1269, 1279 n.7 (11th Cir. 2004); see also Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 481–

82 (1995) (holding prison regulations are not intended to confer rights or

benefits on inmates but are designed to guide correctional officials in the

administration of prisons); United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 751–52

(1979) (finding violations of agency regulations do not raise constitutional

questions).

Second, to the extent Plaintiff premises his Eighth Amendment claim

solely on Defendant Garcia’s failure to prevent a “potential danger” posed by a

known dangerous inmate, he fails to state a plausible claim for relief. 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). Indeed, the duty to

“take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates,” id. at 832,

does not make prison officials “the guarantor[s] of [inmates’] safety,” Purcell ex

rel. Est. of Morgan v. Toombs Cnty., Ga., 400 F.3d 1313, 1321 (11th Cir. 2005).

To state a plausible Eighth Amendment claim, a plaintiff-inmate must

allege the prison official was “subjectively aware” of a “substantial risk of

serious harm” but failed to respond “reasonably to the risk.” Carter v.

6

Galloway, 352 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2003). “The known risk of injury must

be a ‘strong likelihood, rather than a mere possibility’ before an official’s failure

to act can constitute deliberate indifference.” Brown v. Hughes, 894 F. 2d 1533,

1537 (11th Cir. 1990). A prison official’s negligence does not equate to

deliberate indifference. Id. (“Merely negligent failure to protect an inmate from

attack does not justify liability under [§] 1983.”).

A court’s consideration of whether there was a strong likelihood, as

opposed to a “mere possibility,” of an injury occurring cannot be based on

“hindsight bias.” Brooks v. Warden, 800 F.3d 1295, 1301 (11th Cir. 2015). The

complained-of condition—violence among inmates—must have resulted in so

many incidents or injuries that such incidents or injuries were “the norm or

something close to it.” Marbury v. Warden, 936 F.3d 1227, 1234 (11th Cir. 2019)

(quoting Purcell, 400 F.3d at 1322)). Thus, to state a plausible claim, an inmate

must allege more than a “generalized awareness of risk.” See Carter, 352 F.3d

at 1349; see also Marbury, 936 F.3d at 1234 (“In general, a plaintiff must show

‘more than a generalized awareness of risk’ to make out a deliberate-

indifference claim.”).

For instance, in Carter, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary

judgment in favor of the defendants because the evidence showed only that

they were aware of an inmate’s “generally problematic nature” before that

7

inmate attacked his cellmate. 352 F.3d at 1349. The defendants knew the

plaintiff’s cellmate had a “well-documented history of prison disobedience and

had been prone to violence.” Id. Additionally, the defendants knew the

plaintiff’s cellmate was “roaming his cell like a ‘caged animal,’” and the

plaintiff complained that his cellmate was “acting crazy.” Id. The court held as

follows with respect to the subjective knowledge component of the Eighth

Amendment claim:

Defendants arguably should have placed Plaintiff elsewhere

but “merely negligent failure to protect an inmate from attack does

not justify liability under section 1983....” Brown v. Hughes, 894

F.2d 1533, 1537 (11th Cir. 1990). Defendants only possessed an

awareness of [the cellmate’s] propensity for being a problematic

inmate; to find Defendants sufficiently culpable would unduly

reduce awareness to a more objective standard, rather than the

required subjective standard set by the Supreme Court. Such a

generalized awareness of risk in these circumstances does not

satisfy the subjective awareness requirement.

Id. at 1350.

In Brooks, the court held the plaintiff failed to state a plausible

deliberate indifference claim when an inmate in an adjacent cell attacked him

within a month of having threatened him. 800 F.3d at 1298. The plaintiff

reported the threats before the attack, “but no action was taken.” Id. By

happenstance, all cell doors in the dorm inadvertently opened at the same time

one day, resulting in a riot during which the inmate injured the plaintiff so

badly that he required treatment at an outside hospital. Id. at 1298–99. The

8

court concluded the plaintiff had alleged only the “mere possibility” that he

could be attacked by virtue of all cell doors inadvertently opening at the same

time, even though the doors had malfunctioned in the past. Id. at 1301. See

also Purcell, 400 F.3d at 1318, 1322 (holding evidence of “several inmate-on-

inmate fights” over several months before the incident did not establish “that

serious inmate-on-inmate violence was the norm or something close to it”).

Accepting as true that Defendant Garcia knew Inmate Gunn had a

violent past with a history of disciplinary infractions, and further accepting

that Defendant Garcia did not follow prison policy when opening Plaintiff’s cell

door, Plaintiff alleges only a “mere possibility” that he could have been injured

by another inmate. See Brooks, 800 F.3d at 1301. He certainly does not allege

facts that would permit the inference “that serious inmate-on-inmate violence

was the norm or something close to it.” See Purcell, 400 F.3d at 1322. On the

contrary, he mentions no prior similar incidents of inmate-on-inmate violence

of which Defendant Garcia was aware. See Compl. at 6–7.

Plaintiff also does not allege that Defendant Garcia opened his cell door

knowing of Inmate Gunn’s plans and intending for him to be attacked. See id.

As such, accepting as true that Defendant Garcia “allowed” the incident to

occur given he remotely opened Plaintiff’s cell door in contravention of prison

policy, such conduct, as alleged, constitutes negligence, not deliberate

9

indifference to a known risk of serious harm. An official’s “failure to follow

procedures does not, by itself, rise to the level of deliberate indifference because

doing so is at most a form of negligence.” Taylor v. Adams, 221 F.3d 1254, 1259

(11th Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff demonstrates at most that Defendant Garcia “only possessed an

awareness of [another inmate’s] propensity for being a problematic inmate,”

which alone does not permit the “inferential leap” that Defendant Garcia had

the culpable state of mind under the stringent deliberate indifference

standard. See Carter, 352 F.3d at 1350; see also Brooks, 800 F.3d at 1301. The

facts Plaintiff alleges are even less compelling than those in Carter and Brooks

because Plaintiff does not allege Inmate Gunn previously threatened him or

engaged in recent behavior that would have put officers on notice that he would

attack another inmate. See Compl. at 6–7. In fact, in his grievance, Plaintiff

concedes he did not know Inmate Gunn before the attack and never “had any

problems with [that inmate] in the past.” Id. at 20. Even if Defendant Garcia

knew the nature and extent of Inmate Gunn’s violent history or knew that

inmates in Plaintiff’s dorm generally had disciplinary problems, Plaintiff

alleges only a “generalized awareness of risk,” which is insufficient to state a

claim for deliberate indifference. See Marbury, 936 F.3d at 1234.

10

Prisons are known to be dangerous places, with some inmates being

more dangerous than others and, therefore, housed in special units with

heightened security (such as the CMU). See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 858 (Thomas,

J. concurring) (“Prisons are necessarily dangerous places; they house society’s

most antisocial and violent people in close proximity with one another.”).

Violent incidents among inmates are “inevitable” in such an environment. Id.

But the constitution does not mandate prison officials foresee and prevent all

“potential danger[s],” as Plaintiff suggests. See Pl. Resp. at 2; see also Compl.

at 6–7. Rather, prison officials have a constitutional obligation to guarantee

inmates’ safety through “reasonable measures.” See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832.

Plaintiff’s allegations, accepted as true and liberally construed, do not

permit the reasonable inference that Defendant Garcia was deliberately

indifferent to his safety. Accordingly, Defendant Garcia is entitled to qualified

immunity for Plaintiff’s failure to state a plausible Eighth Amendment claim.2

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

1. Defendant Garcia’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 47) is GRANTED.

2 Finding Plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim, the Court will not address

Defendant Garcia’s other arguments.

11

2. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant Garcia,

terminate any pending motions as moot, and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 24th day of

October 2024.

J) /

fo Aagee | a OAL.

BRIAN. DAVIS

United States District Judge

Jax-6

C:

Jonathan Lopez

Counsel of Record

12