Moore v. Hall
3:17-cv-00002
S.D. Ga.May 15, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Willie George Moore, a pro se inmate at Telfair State Prison, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to his safety after an inmate-on-inmate attack.
- On May 6, 2016 Moore, assigned as an SMU orderly, opened a door and was attacked by SMU inmate Marquis Norwood, suffering cuts, bruises, and stab wounds.
- Defendant Jorge Castro, a CERT officer, initially ran toward the incident armed with pepper spray and a Taser but left to look for his radio, returning later with another officer to subdue Norwood.
- Plaintiff alleges Warden Phillip Hall knew of prior breakout/attack risks and failed to provide adequate monitoring of SMU recreation pens.
- Plaintiff alleges CERT Sergeant Jacob Beasley failed to properly search inmates, recreation pens, and orderlies, permitting weapons into the SMU area.
- The Magistrate Judge screened the amended complaint, found a plausible Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Castro, recommended dismissal of Hall and Beasley (and official-capacity monetary claims against Castro), and stayed defendant responses pending the district judge’s ruling on the R&R.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Castro is liable under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference in failing to protect Moore from an inmate attack | Castro ran toward attack but abandoned Moore to retrieve his radio, failing to intervene which caused harm | Castro moved to dismiss the original complaint (arguments not detailed in screening order) | Court found Moore plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment claim against Castro and allowed service to proceed |
| Whether supervisory officials (Hall, Beasley) are liable for deliberate indifference based on facility policies/monitoring | Hall failed to ensure proper monitoring despite known breakout risks; Beasley failed regular searches, allowing weapons into SMU | Hall and Beasley moved to dismiss; court constrained by screening standards | Court concluded claims against Hall and Beasley (and official-capacity monetary claims vs. Castro) should be dismissed (per separate R&R) |
| Whether amended complaint supplants prior pleadings and must be screened | Moore sought leave to amend; amended complaint replaces prior pleadings | N/A | Court granted leave to amend and screened the amended complaint under IFP screening standards |
| Timing for defendants’ response after R&R | N/A | Defendants requested stay of discovery and moved to dismiss | Court stayed discovery, stayed response deadline until district judge rules on R&R; any remaining defendant must answer within 14 days of the judge’s order |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoefling v. City of Miami, 811 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir.) (amended complaint supersedes prior pleadings)
- Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir.) (amended pleadings replace earlier complaints)
- Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782 (11th Cir.) (in forma pauperis complaints must be screened to protect defendants)
- Lane v. Philbin, 835 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir.) (standards for Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims)
- Hadley v. Gutierrez, 526 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir.) (officer’s failure to intervene in inmate-on-inmate attack may satisfy subjective deliberate indifference)