Slaughter v. Gramiak, 5:15-cv-00090

Slaughter, a Ware State Prison inmate, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming excessive force, denial of medical care, ADA violations, and retaliation after an incident on Feb. 28, 2015 when officers allegedly jerked him from his walker, handcuffed him, and he suffered a seizure.
He alleges officers then physically and verbally abused him, placed him in solitary, denied medical care, and that subsequent grievances led to further retaliation (unsafe walkways, threats, searches, destruction of legal materials, false disciplinary reports).
After frivolity review the Court allowed retaliation claims to proceed only against certain defendants (Gramiak, Johnson, Ritter, Pratt, Cox, Adams, Jenkins) and dismissed retaliation claims against others (including Kicklighter).
Slaughter moved for a declaratory judgment (and arguably injunctive relief) seeking a declaration that defendants’ acts violated the Constitution and federal law and requesting relief for ongoing retaliation and ADA violations.
The Magistrate Judge recommended denial of the declaratory judgment and any preliminary injunction request, finding Slaughter had alleged arguable claims but had not shown a likelihood of success, had not identified the specific legal relationships to be declared, nor shown how a favorable ruling would redress present injuries.
The Magistrate also recommended denial of leave to appeal in forma pauperis, concluding any appeal would lack non-frivolous issues and would not be taken in good faith.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether declaratory judgment is proper	Slaughter seeks a declaration that defendants violated his constitutional and ADA rights through force, denial of care, retaliation, and unlawful searches	Implicitly: declaratory relief inappropriate because plaintiff has not shown likelihood of success or redressability	Denied — plaintiff alleged claims but failed to show a substantial controversy likely to be resolved in his favor or how declaratory relief would redress injuries
Whether preliminary injunctive relief is warranted	Requests injunctive relief to stop ongoing retaliation and ADA violations	Prison administration interests and plaintiff has not met the high burden for injunction	Denied — plaintiff did not show likelihood of success on merits or satisfy injunction prerequisites
Whether plaintiff may reassert previously-dismissed retaliation claims via motion	Seeks to include additional retaliation theories and relief in his motion	Court previously dismissed certain retaliation claims (e.g., against Kicklighter); such claims cannot be revived in this motion	Denied — dismissed claims cannot be reasserted through the declaratory-judgment motion
Whether leave to appeal IFP should be granted	Would proceed on appeal without prepayment if permitted	Court may certify appeal not taken in good faith where claims are frivolous or lack arguable merit	Denied — appellate IFP not permitted because no non-frivolous issues to appeal

Mata v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 426 F. App’x 698 (11th Cir. 2011) (Declaratory Judgment Act does not create independent jurisdictional basis)
Borden v. Katzman, 881 F.2d 1035 (11th Cir. 1989) (suit under Declaratory Judgment Act requires independent jurisdictional source)
GTE Directories Publ’g Corp. v. Trimen Am., Inc., 67 F.3d 1563 (11th Cir. 1995) (standing/actual controversy requirements for declaratory relief)
Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2005) (four-factor preliminary injunction standard)
Horton v. City of Augustine, 272 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2001) (injunction is extraordinary remedy; heavy burden on movant)
Newman v. Ala., 683 F.2d 1312 (11th Cir. 1982) (courts defer to prison administrators; injunction must be no broader than necessary)
Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (U.S. 1974) (federal courts generally refrain from intruding on prison administration)
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (U.S. 1962) (appeal in forma pauperis may be denied if appeal not taken in good faith)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1989) (frivolous suits lack arguable merit and may be dismissed)
Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528 (11th Cir. 2002) (IFP action is frivolous if without arguable merit)