HOLLAND

v.

JOHNSON

“deprived him of a right secured under the Constitution or federal law.” Id. As Defendants, Plaintiff names L.T. Johnson, a shift supervisor; Gharden, a responding employee; the “compliance manager”; and the “PREA² coordinator.” See Compl. at 2-3. However, Plaintiff does not allege facts permitting the inference that any

“due process,” he fails to connect his factual allegations to alleged constitutional violations. Confusingly, on page eight, Plaintiff identifies two “issues,” but they have nothing to do with his factual allegations or his purported constitutional claims. Id. at 8. In fact, it appears Plaintiff mistakenly included this page with his complaint. The issues he identifies sound like issues on appeal: he references the “appellant” and says the “lower tribunal’s” authorization of a lien on his inmate bank account was an abuse of discretion. Id. Aside from the pleading deficiencies, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. The primary basis for Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Johnson (and perhaps the other named Defendants) appears to be his dissatisfaction with Johnson’s investigation and resolution of his sexual harassment allegation against the nurse. Plaintiff alleges he filed a grievance reporting sexual harassment, and the responding official informed him his allegation “was referred to the shift supervisor,” Defendant Johnson. Id. at 7. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Johnson determined his allegation “did not rise to the level of PREA.” Id. According to Plaintiff, the “investigative process . . . failed.” Id. at 5. The Eleventh Circuit has held a prisoner’s claim that he is unsatisfied with a prison grievance process is frivolous because “a prison grievance procedure does not provide an inmate with a constitutionally protected interest.” Bingham, 654 F. 3d at 1177. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant Johnson responsible for his placement in disciplinary confinement, he fails to state a plausible claim for relief. See Woodson v. Whitehead, 673 F. App’x 931, 933 (11th Cir. 2016) (“The Due Process Clause does not create an enforceable liberty interest in freedom from restrictive confinement while a prisoner is incarcerated.”). As to the loss of good-time credits, Plaintiff asserts no facts indicating he was denied due process at the disciplinary hearing. See Compl. at 7. Plaintiff also fails to allege facts permitting the reasonable inference Defendant Johnson was deliberately indifferent to his health or safety. See Campbell v. Sikes, 169 F. 3d 1353, 1364 (11th Cir. 1999) (noting that to state an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must allege the prison official “actually knew of ‘an excessive risk to inmate health or safety’ and disregarded that risk.”). That Plaintiff was dissatisfied with Defendant Johnson’s handling of his sexual harassment complaint does not permit the inference Defendant Johnson was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s safety. On the contrary, according to Plaintiff, Defendant Johnson investigated his complaint. See Compl. at 7. As to the other Defendants, Plaintiff alleges no facts connecting them to alleged constitutional violations. To the extent Plaintiff names them in their capacities as supervisors of

Defendant Johnson, he does not state a plausible claim for relief because he fails to state an underlying constitutional violation against Defendant Johnson and the Eleventh Circuit has rejected respondeat superior as a theory of liability under § 1983. Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F. 3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2003). Additionally, “filing a grievance with a supervisory person does not automatically make the supervisor liable for the allegedly unconstitutional conduct brought to light by the grievance, even when the grievance is denied.” Jones v. Eckloff, No. 2:12-cv-375- Ftm-29DNF, 2013 WL 6231181, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Dec.², 2013) (citing Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F. 3d 1063, 1069 (10th Cir. 2009)).

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:

1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

2. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing this case without prejudice, terminate any pending motions, and close the file. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this lst day of May 2020. 4 De af J. DAVIS United States District Judge

Jax-6 Cc: Branden Holland