Hacker v. Thomas
5:16-cv-01773
| N.D. Ala. | May 26, 2017Background
- Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleges repeated threats, extortion, and a sexual assault by other inmates across multiple Alabama prisons between 2011–2017 and seeks money damages and injunctive relief (including administrative segregation).
- He reported threats repeatedly (PREA hotline, letters to wardens and Commissioner Dunn); prison staff sometimes moved him but did not consistently place him in protective custody.
- At Bibb Correctional Facility plaintiff told Lt. Roseman he feared inmate Derrick Alexander; Roseman said he'd arrange placement in the honor dorm and informed Capt. Hutton and Warden Thomas, but plaintiff was not moved and was later sexually assaulted by Alexander.
- Plaintiff alleges Warden Leon Bolling at Donaldson ignored written requests for protection and that other officials (Gordy, Bias, Dunn, Thomas, Hutton, Roseman) were aware of the risk but failed to prevent harm.
- Magistrate recommends dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim and denial of the emergency TRO; official-capacity claims were dismissed on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Official-capacity liability | Suits against officials should proceed for injunctive and damages relief | State officials immune under Eleventh Amendment | Official-capacity claims dismissed as barred by sovereign immunity |
| Supervisory liability (Dunn) | Dunn received letters and thus is liable for failing to stop harm | Letters alone do not show personal participation or causation | Claims against Dunn dismissed for failure to plead personal involvement |
| Failure-to-protect by Bibb staff (Roseman, Hutton, Thomas) | Staff knew of threats; plan was made but plaintiff was not moved and was assaulted | Actions (or calls about relocation) were reasonable; Roseman’s omission was negligent, not deliberate indifference | Hutton and Thomas dismissed (no personal culpability); Roseman dismissed because allegations show at most negligence, not deliberate indifference |
| Failure-to-protect / injunctive relief re: Bolling and TRO | Bolling ignored written requests and will not protect plaintiff after segregation; seeks order placing him in admin segregation | Housing/classification decisions are discretionary; plaintiff has no right to specific placement; injunction would just order defendants to "obey the law" | Claims against Bolling and request for injunctive relief/TRO dismissed for failure to state a claim and because the requested injunction would be impermissibly general |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (frivolous-claim standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference failure-to-protect standard)
- Caldwell v. Warden, FCI Talladega, 748 F.3d 1090 (prison officials’ duty and objective reasonableness)
- Lane v. Philbin, 835 F.3d 1302 (Eighth Amendment safety obligations)
- Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352 (supervisory liability under § 1983)
- Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (no constitutional right to particular prison placement)