US District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami) - United States ...
US District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami) - United States ...
US District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami) - United States ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Case 1:09-cv-22905-JAL Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2011 Page 2 <strong>of</strong> 15<br />
2<br />
Stringer v. Jackson, et al.<br />
Case No. 09-22905-Civ-Lenard/White<br />
―admitted that he does not take back erroneous commissary orders‖ and refused to provide the<br />
Plaintiff with records <strong>of</strong> the commissary order in question. Id.<br />
Plaintiff proceeds to allege that Jackson and Harris ―retaliated against the plaintiff<br />
because <strong>of</strong> his proclivity to file grievances,‖ as well filing lawsuits against other staff members<br />
from the <strong>Miami</strong>-Dade County Corrections and Rehabilitation Department, including Case No.<br />
08-21877-CV-Cooke. Id. at 5. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Harris and Jackson retaliated<br />
by ―caus[ing] the Plaintiff to be illegally transferred to much harsher and more dangerous jail<br />
conditions,‖ and claims he ―will further show evidence <strong>of</strong> illegal transfers to other jails and cells<br />
in which ‗a hit‘ (an order for serious harm or murder) was put out on the plaintiff, at the express<br />
direction <strong>of</strong> one <strong>of</strong> more <strong>of</strong> the defendant‘s [sic].‖ Plaintiff claims that an ―<strong>of</strong>ficial report‖ <strong>of</strong> a<br />
―hit‖ attempted on his life exists, which ―occurred at the <strong>Miami</strong>-Dade County Main Jail on or<br />
about May 1, 2010.‖ Id. 1<br />
Plaintiff concludes by maintaining that retaliatory actions by both Jackson and Harris<br />
have led him to suffer ―actual losses <strong>of</strong> property, money, commissary, [and] legal materials,‖<br />
while also ―preventing, delaying, [and] obstructing <strong>Court</strong> access [and] deliberately putting the<br />
[P]laintiff in danger, in fear for his life, caus[ing] irreversible harms, suffering and loss to the<br />
[P]laintiff.‖ Id. at 5-6.<br />
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW<br />
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain factual allegations which are<br />
―enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.‖ Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,<br />
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Thus, ―[w]hile a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to<br />
dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‗grounds‘<br />
<strong>of</strong> his ‗entitle[ment] to relief‘ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic<br />
recitation <strong>of</strong> the elements <strong>of</strong> a cause <strong>of</strong> action will not do.‖ Id. at 555 (citations omitted).<br />
Rather, the facts set forth in the complaint must be sufficient to ―nudge the[ ] claims across the<br />
1 Plaintiff also sets forth a number <strong>of</strong> allegations pertaining to the <strong>Miami</strong>-Dade County<br />
Corrections and Rehabilitation Department (―MDCR‖). See D.E. No. 48 at 7. However, the<br />
<strong>Court</strong> has already unequivocally dismissed MDCR as a defendant in this action. See D.E. No. 32<br />
at 2 (holding that ―the <strong>Court</strong> DISMISSES Plaintiff‘s claims against Defendant <strong>Miami</strong>-Dade<br />
Corrections and Rehabilitation Department and Plaintiff‘s remaining claims against Defendants<br />
Jackson and Harris shall be allowed to proceed.‖) Accordingly, Defendants‘ Motion to Dismiss<br />
need not address these allegations against MDCR.