Moore v. Hall
3:17-cv-00002
S.D. Ga.May 15, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Willie George Moore, an inmate at Telfair State Prison, filed a § 1983 suit alleging deliberate indifference to his safety after an attack on May 6, 2016 in the SMU recreation area.
- Moore, then age 69, was working as an SMU orderly when inmate Marquis Norwood escaped a recreation pen and attacked him, inflicting cuts, bruises, and stab wounds.
- Defendant Jorge Castro, a CERT officer, was present with pepper spray and a Taser but ran off to look for his radio instead of immediately intervening; he later returned with another officer and helped subdue Norwood.
- Plaintiff alleged Warden Phillip Hall knew of prior breakouts and had not provided adequate monitoring of SMU recreation pens, and Sergeant Jacob Beasley failed to search inmates and areas for weapons.
- Plaintiff moved to withdraw his claims against Hall and Beasley; the court construed that as a voluntary dismissal request and recommended their dismissal.
- The court also determined that any official-capacity claim for monetary damages against Castro is barred by the Eleventh Amendment and should be dismissed; the Eighth Amendment individual-capacity claim against Castro remains (case to proceed on that basis).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims against Hall and Beasley should remain | Moore alleged supervisory failure to prevent weapons/escapes leading to the attack | Defendants moved to dismiss; no direct response recorded to withdrawal | Moore expressly withdrew claims; court recommends dismissal of Hall and Beasley |
| Whether official-capacity monetary damages against Castro are permissible | Moore seeks money damages against Castro (capacity marking unclear) | State officials are immune from official-capacity money damages under Eleventh Amendment | Official-capacity money damages against Castro dismissed as barred by Eleventh Amendment |
| Whether the Eighth Amendment claim against Castro survives screening | Castro failed to intervene during an assault, showing deliberate indifference to safety | Defendants moved to dismiss; court screened complaint under §1915 standards | Complaint plausibly alleges Castro’s individual Eighth Amendment liability; claim may proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (applies plausibility standard and rejects bare conclusions)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (defines frivolousness in IFP screening)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (requires liberal construction of pro se complaints)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (same: liberal treatment of pro se filings)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity suits for money damages)
- Hoefling v. City of Miami, 811 F.3d 1271 (an amended complaint supersedes prior pleadings)
- Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184 (same principle on amendment superseding earlier pleadings)