Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida screened Justin W. Settle’s amended prisoner civil-rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. The court allowed his Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims for damages against Sergeant Yates and Officer Cannado to proceed, while dismissing claims against Sergeant Hernandez and Secretary Ricky Dixon, including the official-capacity injunctive-relief and Fourteenth Amendment due-process claims. The case was administratively closed pending service on the remaining defendants.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Settle plausibly stated Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims against Yates and Cannado based on allegations that they bribed inmates to stab and sexually assault him.
- Whether Settle stated an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Hernandez when he alleged that Hernandez failed to report his request for protection but did not connect that omission to a specific injury.
- Whether Settle could obtain prospective injunctive relief against Secretary Dixon under Ex parte Young requiring an interstate transfer to a prison of Settle's choice.
- Whether Settle had a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim based on alleged denial of access to Florida's prison grievance process.
- Whether Settle stated a Fifth Amendment due-process claim under § 1983 against state officials.
Holdings
- The allegations plausibly stated failure-to-protect claims because they alleged a substantial risk of serious harm, subjective deliberate indifference, and causation. The claims for damages against Yates and Cannado in their individual capacities could proceed to service.
- The allegations plausibly stated failure-to-protect claims because the threatened rape and attempted sexual assault constituted a substantial risk of serious harm, the alleged payment offer plausibly demonstrated deliberate indifference, and the resulting fight and back injury plausibly established causation. The claims could proceed to service.
- The claim failed because Settle did not allege that Hernandez's failure to place him on protective status or report his request was the but-for cause of any injury.
- The prospective-transfer claim was dismissed because the requested order directing the State where to house Settle would impermissibly intrude on state sovereignty.
- Settle failed to state a due-process claim because he had no constitutionally protected liberty interest in access to the state prison grievance procedure.
- The Fifth Amendment due-process theory was not cognizable under § 1983 because the Fifth Amendment's due-process protections constrain the federal government, not state officials.
Key quotations
“To prevail on [a failure-to-protect] claim brought under § 1983, the plaintiff must show: (1) a substantial risk of serious harm; (2) the defendant[’s] deliberate indifference to that risk; and (3) a causal connection between the defendant[’s] conduct and the Eighth Amendment violation.” (Analysis § I.a)
“The Eleventh Circuit has squarely held that “an inmate has no constitutionally-protected liberty interest in access to [a prison’s grievance] procedure.”” (Analysis § II)
“Justin W. Settle’s failure-to-protect claims for damages against Sergeant Yates and Officer Cannado in their individual capacities shall PROCEED to service.” (Disposition)
Factual background
Settle alleged that Sergeant Yates and Officer Cannado offered an inmate a pack of cigarettes to stab him in retaliation for allegedly pushing a correctional officer, and that the inmate attempted the stabbing, causing a head injury. He also alleged that the same officers paid another inmate to rape him; the attempted assault escalated into a fight in which Settle suffered a serious back injury. Settle further alleged that Sergeant Hernandez failed to place him on protective status after he reported the threats, and that Secretary Dixon maintained an allegedly inaccessible grievance process and refused to act on grievance appeals.
Procedural history
Settle filed an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and moved to proceed in forma pauperis. The court granted in forma pauperis status and screened the amended complaint. It allowed four individual-capacity Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims for damages against Sergeant Yates and Officer Cannado to proceed to service, dismissed all remaining claims, terminated Sergeant Hernandez and Secretary Dixon as parties, and administratively closed the case pending service.