27.10.2013 Views

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 ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!