# Henderson v. Bimbo (MAG+)

> District Court, M.D. Alabama · April 15, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10846022

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Alabama
- **Decided:** April 15, 2025
- **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/10846022

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding an inmate’s placement on disciplinary segregation constitutes a loss of liberty when it imposes an “atypical and significant hardship . . . in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”
- holding, in the context of a claim that forcible medication deprived the plaintiff of fair trial, that a pretrial detainee1 may be forcibly treated for mental illness if certain due process requirements are met

## Opinion text

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

KENNETH HENDERSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 2:25-cv-181-RAH-JTA
) (WO)
OFFICER BIMBO, OFFICER )
MCCRAY, and MONTGOMERY )
COUNTY JAIL, )
)
Defendants. )

ORDER

By separate order entered this date, the court granted pro se Plaintiff Kenneth
Henderson’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.) For the reasons
stated below, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court concludes Henderson’s
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and orders Henderson to
file an amended complaint.
I. DISCUSSION
Because Henderson is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court must review his
pleading(s) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under that statute, the court is required to
dismiss a complaint if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune
from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) – (iii). Upon review, the court finds the
complaint contains numerous deficiencies that must be remedied before this case can
proceed.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted unless it contains “a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While detailed factual
allegations are not required, a plaintiff must present “more than an unadorned, the-
defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “A pleading that offers
‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will
not do.’” Id. “Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of

‘further factual enhancement.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Factual allegations
must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . on the assumption
that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555.
In his complaint, Henderson alleges the following:

When I was detained in the city jail, Officer Bimbo threw my food on the jail
floor every meal during his shift. Officer McCray took my glasses. I was
deprived of water while in an isolation cell for two weeks. I was chemically
restrained and sedated while in isolation.

(Doc. No. 1 at 1.)
Henderson alleges the above events occurred from June through August 2024. (Id.)
He names as Defendants Officer Bimbo, Officer McCray, and the Montgomery County
Jail. (Id.)
More information is needed to assess whether Henderson can state a cognizable
claim against Officers Bimbo and McCray. Henderson fails to allege facts sufficient to
show that, by throwing Henderson’s food on the floor, Officer Bimbo deprived Henderson
of food to such an extent that he deprived Henderson of his constitutional rights. See Oliver

v. Gafford, No. 5:15-CV-153-WTH-GRJ, 2018 WL 1938308, at *8 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 19,
2018) (“Plaintiff alleges . . . that food trays with food on them were thrown [on the floor],
not that he was deprived of food.”), report and recommendation adopted, No. 515-CV-153-
WTH-GRJ, 2018 WL 1937072 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2018). For example, Henderson fails to
allege whether throwing the food on the floor deprived him of food, how often Officer
Bimbo was on shift to deliver his food, whether throwing the food on the floor made it

inedible, and whether Henderson suffered any ill effects from the food being thrown on the
floor (or from reduced food intake). Cf. Id. (in considering a motion summary judgment,
concluding evidence an officer threw an inmate’s food on the floor, without more, was
insufficient to establish a constitutional violation). Similarly, the factual allegations against
Officer McCray are so sparse they are insufficient to state a claim that the confiscation of

Henderson’s glasses rose to the level of, for example, deliberate indifference to
Henderson’s safety or unconstitutional deprivation of property or necessary medical care.
Further, “[t]o state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two
elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was
violated and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of

state law,” Brown v. Russell Co. Jail, No. 3:22-CV-202-WHA-CSC, 2022 WL 22862950,
at *1 & n.1 (M.D. Ala. May 17, 2022) (emphasis in original). Henderson names no
“person” who is allegedly culpable for his claims that he “was deprived of water while in
an isolation cell for two weeks” and “was chemically restrained and sedated while in
isolation.” (Doc. No. 1 at 1.) He does not assert Officers Bimbo or McCray were the culprits
of his isolation or chemical restraint. Moreover, the Montgomery County Jail is not an

entity subject to suit. See, e.g., Bivens v. Montgomery Cnty. Det. Facility, No. 2:24-CV-
703-WKW-KFP, 2024 WL 5304955, at *1 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 13, 2024) (finding the
Montgomery County, Alabama, detention facility is not an entity subject to suit), report
and recommendation adopted, No. 2:24-CV-703-WKW, 2025 WL 51943 (M.D. Ala. Jan.
8, 2025); Brown, 2022 WL 22862950, at *1 n.1 (explaining that a county jail is not a
“person” subject to suit under § 1983). Therefore, Henderson has not stated § 1983 claims

against a “person” for his treatment in isolation or chemical restraint. See Brown 2022 WL
22862950, at *1 (“[I]n filing a § 1983 action[,] Plaintiff must set forth the facts that support
his claims against the individuals he names as defendants, and state clearly how each
named defendant violated his constitutional rights, the date(s) on which the incident(s)
occurred, and where the incident(s) occurred.”).

Further, even if Henderson had named a culpable actor legally subject to suit, his
factual allegations are insufficient to establish either his isolation or his chemical restraint
were constitutional violations. Isolation and chemical restraint, without more, are not
necessarily unconstitutional. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484-87 (1995) (finding
an inmate’s placement on disciplinary segregation constitutes a loss of liberty when it

imposes an “atypical and significant hardship . . . in relation to the ordinary incidents of
prison life”); Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127 (1992) (holding, in the context of a claim
that forcible medication deprived the plaintiff of fair trial, that a pretrial detainee1 may be
forcibly treated for mental illness if certain due process requirements are met); Kister v.

Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 2025 WL 1013729, at **5–6 (11th Cir. Apr. 4, 2025)
(explaining the elements of a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need);
see also, e.g., Braggs v. Dunn, 257 F. Supp. 3d 1171 (M.D. Ala. 2017) (addressing claims
of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in the context of the Alabama
Department of Corrections’ treatment of prisoners with mental health issues, including
placing them in isolation or segregation); Dunn v. Dunn, 219 F. Supp. 3d 1100, 1153 (M.D.

Ala. 2016) (“Although a prisoner’s constitutional right to be free from unwanted
medication is evaluated in light of the fact that he is incarcerated, . . . involuntary-
medication orders must meet minimum standards of substantive and procedural due
process.” (citing Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 220 222 (1990)).
Accordingly, Henderson’s complaint, as it currently stands, does not state a claim

upon which relief can be granted. Because Henderson is entitled to one opportunity to
amend before dismissal for failure to state a claim, he must amend his complaint in
compliance with this order or face dismissal of this case. See Henderson2 v. Montgomery
Cnty. Det. Facility, No. 2:24-CV-145-MHT-JTA, 2024 WL 3370820, at *2 (M.D. Ala. Apr.
12, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:24CV145-MHT, 2024 WL 3361625

(M.D. Ala. July 10, 2024) (“Before dismissal of the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e), ‘[a]

1 Henderson does not specify whether he was incarcerated as a pretrial or posttrial detainee at the
time of the incidents giving rise to his complaint.

2 Henderson was the plaintiff in Henderson, 2024 WL 3370820.
plaintiff ordinarily should get one opportunity to amend his complaint before dismissal
with prejudice.’” (quoting Emrit v. Sec’y, United States Dep’t of Educ., 829 F. App’x 474,

477 (11th Cir. 2020)).)
Finally, Henderson has not filed the required conflict disclosure form. The Clerk of
the Court notified him of this deficiency by letter dated March 7, 2025, and provided him
a copy of the relevant form. (Doc. No. 4.) The Clerk instructed Henderson to correct the
deficiency “within ten . . . days” of the date of the letter. (Id. at 1.) That deadline has passed.

II. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. On or before April 28, 2025, Henderson shall file the required disclosure statement.
A template “Disclosure Statement” is available on the court’s website at
https://www.almd.uscourts.gov/forms/conflict-disclosure-form-2024.

2. On or before April 28, 2025, Henderson must file an amended complaint in
compliance with the following requirements:
a. To the extent possible, correctly names Defendant(s).
b. States claims against Defendants who are individuals or legal entities subject

to suit.
c. Sets out a short, plain statement of the facts on which Henderson bases his
claims. The amended complaint must specifically describe how Defendants
acted, or failed to act, in a manner that harmed Henderson.
d. Presents a short and plain statement of each claim showing Henderson 1s
entitled to relief and “give[s] [each] defendant fair notice of what the... .
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
(citation omitted); Fed R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The amended complaint should set
out each claim in a separately numbered count that specifies which law was
allegedly violated and reference specific allegations of fact that support each
legal claim. To the extent practicable, and for further clarity, Henderson
should also state when the alleged violations occurred.
e. Includes Henderson’s signature in compliance with Rule 11(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Henderson is advised that failure to timely file an amended complaint in
compliance with this Order may constitute grounds for dismissal for failure to
prosecute this case and for failure to comply with the court’s orders. Such dismissal
may be with or without prejudice. Henderson is further advised that his amended
complaint will be subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) review.
DONE this 15th day of April, 2025.

MDhu
rat T. ADAMS
UNIZED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10846022. Public record. Not legal advice.