SHIFLETT v. COLBERT et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
MICHAEL SHIFLETT, 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	:
: 	No. 5:25-cv-00326-MTT-CHW
v. 	:
:
SGT COLBERT, 	:
CERT SGT. MARLIN PAUL, 	:
CERT SGT. ARNOLD, 	:
CHIEF COUNSELOR JACKSON,1 	: 	P ROCEEDINGS U NDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
: 	BEFORE THE U.S. M AGISTRATE JUDGE
Defendants. 	:
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se Plaintiff Michael Shiflett, a prisoner at Smith Transitional Center in Claxton,
Georgia filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. 	ECF No. 1. 	Plaintiff also requested leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) which was granted with the provision that
Plaintiff pay a statutorily required partial initial filing fee (ECF No. 4). 	Plaintiff has paid
that fee. 	Plaintiff was also ordered to recast his complaint. 	ECF No. 15. 	Plaintiff has
now filed his recast complaint. 	ECF No. 17. 	This civil action is ripe for preliminary
review. 	Upon such review, Plaintiff may proceed with his Eighth Amendment claim
1 Plaintiff was informed that his recast complaint would take the place of his previous
complaints filed in this civil action. 	ECF No. 15 at 7-8. 	Thus, Plaintiff’s recast complaint
(ECF No. 17) is now the operative complaint in this civil action. See Schreane v.
Middlebrooks¸ 522 F. App’x 845, 847 (11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (noting that generally,
an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint); Hoefling v. City of Miami, 811
F.3d 1271, 1277 (11th Cir. 2016) (stating that when an amended complaint is filed, the
previously filed complaint becomes “a legal nullity”). 	In his recast complaint, Plaintiff
has added Chief Counselor Jackson as a Defendant. 	ECF No. 17 at 1. 	The Clerk of Court
is thus DIRECTED to add Chief Counselor Jackson as a Defendant.
Case 5:25-cv-00326-MTT-CHW Document 18 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 12

2
against Defendants Colbert, Paul and Arnold for further factual development. 	It is
RECOMMENDED, however, that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Jackson be
DISMISSED without prejudice.
PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
I. 	Standard of Review
The Prison Litigation Reform Act directs courts to conduct a preliminary screening
of every complaint filed by a prisoner who seeks redress from a government entity, official,
or employee. 	28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 	Courts must also screen complaints filed by a
plaintiff proceeding IFP. 	28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 	Both statutes apply in this case, and the
standard of review is the same. 	“Pro se filings are generally held to a less stringent
standard than those drafted by attorneys and are liberally construed.” 	Carmichael v.
United States, 966 F.3d 1250, 1258 (11th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). 	Still, the Court
must dismiss a prisoner complaint if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 	28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
A claim is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” 	Miller
v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). 	On preliminary
review, the Court may dismiss claims that are based on “indisputably meritless legal”
theories and “claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” 	Id. (citations
omitted). 	A claim can be dismissed as malicious if it is knowingly duplicative or
otherwise amounts to an abuse of the judicial process. 	Daker v. Ward, 999 F.3d 1300,
Case 5:25-cv-00326-MTT-CHW Document 18 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 12

3
1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2021) (affirming dismissal of duplicative complaint “in light of
[prisoner’s] history as a prolific serial filer”).
A complaint fails to state a claim if it does not include “sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
“Factual allegations [in a complaint] must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level . . . .” 	Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 	In other words,
the complaint must allege enough facts “to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery
will reveal evidence” supporting a claim. 	Id. at 556. 	“Threadbare recitals of the elements
of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” 	Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) an act or
omission deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or a
statute of the United States; and (2) the act or omission was committed by a person acting
under color of state law. 	Hale v. Tallapoosa Cnty., 50 F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th Cir. 1995).
If a litigant cannot satisfy these requirements or fails to provide factual allegations in
support of his claim or claims, the complaint is subject to dismissal. 	See, e.g., Bingham v.
Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1176-77 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal of certain claims at
preliminary screening because prisoner failed to allege sufficient facts to show a violation
of his rights), abrogated on other grounds by Wade v. McDade, 106 F.4th 1251, 1255 (11th
Cir. 2024) (en banc).
Case 5:25-cv-00326-MTT-CHW Document 18 Filed 12/05/25 Page 3 of 12

4
II. 	Plaintiff’s Allegations
Plaintiff’s claims arise from his previous incarceration at Dooley State Prison in
Unadilla, Georgia. 	ECF No. 17 at 5. 	Plaintiff states that after he reported a sexual
assault, a “mental health doctor wrote an order for me to be put in a cell in the segregation
unit in a cell by myself.” 	Id. 	Plaintiff states that while in segregation on August 10, 2023,
he witnessed Defendants Paul, Colbert, and Arnold “assault a Hispanic inmate with a
chemical agent.” 	Id. 	Plaintiff got upset and told Defendants “what they were doing was
illegal.” 	Id. 	Plaintiff states that the Defendants then approached his cell telling him that
since he “had a problem with what they were doing they were going to put some one in
[his] cell with [him].” 	Id. 	Plaintiff explained he was under a mental health order to have
no cellmates. 	Defendant Paul responded that he did not care about Plaintiff’s mental
health and told Plaintiff “your gonna fight today white boy.” 	Id. at 6. 	Plaintiff claims
that Defendants Paul, Colbert, and Arnold then placed another inmate in his cell who was
“known for beating up his roommates,” and that inmate punched him as soon as the
Defendants released his handcuffs. 	Id. 	Defendants watched Plaintiff and the inmate
fight for an undisclosed amount of time, then stopped the fight and removed the other
inmate from the cell. 	Id. 	Plaintiff states the Defendants then searched his cell and found
a broken broom stick under his mattress. 	Id. 	Plaintiff claims that Defendant Paul
confronted him while “Arnold and Colbert had [him] standing against the wall” and that
Defendant Paul struck Plaintiff in the nose. 	Id. at 6-7. 	Plaintiff claims that after he
doubled over from the nose strike, “all three defendants began punching me, I dropped to
Case 5:25-cv-00326-MTT-CHW Document 18 Filed 12/05/25 Page 4 of 12

5
the ground and they began kicking and stomping me, one kick caught me in the side of my
face and my head hit the wall and I was knocked out.” 	Id. at 7. 	Plaintiff states that after
being knocked out, “I woke up and I was being kicked in my chest.” 	Id. 	After
Defendants ceased assaulting Plaintiff and as they were closing his cell door, Plaintiff
threw a cup of disinfectant. 	Id. 	Plaintiff claims that Defendants Colbert and Paul then
emptied cans of pepper spray into his cell through the tray flap. 	Id. 	Plaintiff states that
he could not breathe and tried to get air from under the cell door. 	Id. 	Plaintiff claims that
Defendant 	Paul 	then 	shoved 	a 	mattress 	in 	front 	of 	door 	“causing 	a 	suffocating
environment.” 	Id. 	Plaintiff states that as a result of the assault he had black eyes, a
bleeding lip, injured shoulder, fractured ribs, and blood in his urine and stool. 	Id. at 9.
Plaintiff seeks damages “for the abuse and trauma from the beating and assault with
the chemical agent.” 	Id. at 11. 	Plaintiff also seeks criminal prosecution of the
Defendants2 and asks that Defendants be terminated from employment.3 	Id.
2 	The 	United 	States 	District 	Courts 	do 	not 	have 	jurisdiction 	to 	institute 	criminal
proceedings or the authority to order state or federal law enforcement agencies or
prosecutors to initiate investigations or prosecutions. 	Otero v. U. S. Attorney Gen., 832
F.2d 141, 141 (11th Cir. 1987). 	Plaintiff, a private citizen, likewise has no power to
originate criminal pleadings on his own initiative. 	Id.
3 The United States District Courts have no authority under § 1983 to order the termination
of employment of any prison officer or other state employee. 	See e.g., Newman v.
Alabama, 559 F.2d 283, 288 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 915 (1978); Bush v. Camp,
1:11–CV–64, 2011 WL 2457909 at * 2 n.1 (M.D.Ga. May 23, 2011); Meachum v. Fano,
427 U.S. 215, 229 (1976) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 491-492 (1973) (“The
federal courts do not sit to supervise state prisons, the administration of which is acute
interest to the States.”); Osterback v. Kemp, 300 F.Supp.2d 1238, 1251 (N.D. Fla. 2003)
(citation omitted) 	(“a federal court must not unnecessarily involve itself in matters of
prison administration.”).
Case 5:25-cv-00326-MTT-CHW Document 18 Filed 12/05/25 Page 5 of 12

6
III. 	Plaintiff’s Claims
A. 	Defendants Colbert, Paul, and Arnold
Claims of excessive force in the context of those incarcerated following conviction
are governed by the Eighth Amendment’s “cruel and unusual punishment” standard.
Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 317-21 (1986). 	Eighth Amendment excessive force
claims have both an objective and subjective component, and the plaintiff has the burden
of establishing both. 	Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992). 	To satisfy the
subjective prong, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant acted with a malicious
and sadistic purpose to inflict harm. 	Id. at 6. 	To satisfy the objective prong, the plaintiff
must show that “the alleged wrongdoing was objectively ‘harmful enough’ to establish a
constitutional violation.” 	Id. at 8 (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 303 (1991)).
The key inquiry is “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or
restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” 	Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559
U.S. 34, 37 (2010) (quoting Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7). 	When the use of force is malicious
or sadistic, “contemporary standards of decency always are violated . . . whether or not
significant injury is evident.” 	Id. (ellipses in original) (quoting Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9).
“In determining whether the force was applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm,
courts consider: ‘a) the need for the application of force; b) the relationship between the
need and the amount of force that was used; c) the extent of the injury inflicted upon the
prisoner; d) the extent of the threat to the safety of staff and inmates; and e) any efforts
made to temper the severity of a forceful response.’” 	Bowden v. Stokely, 576 F. App’x
Case 5:25-cv-00326-MTT-CHW Document 18 Filed 12/05/25 Page 6 of 12

7
951, 953 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (quoting Fennell v. Gilstrap, 559 F.3d 1212, 1217
(11th Cir. 2009)).
Plaintiff complains that although he was compliant with officers’ orders, Defendants
Colbert, Paul, and Arnold repeatedly punched and kicked him, to the point that Plaintiff
lost consciousness and suffered fractured ribs, black eyes, a bleeding lip, injured shoulder,
and blood in his urine and stool. 	ECF No. 17 at 6-9. 	Plaintiff further complains that after
he was beaten by Defendants Colbert, Paul, and Arnold, Defndants emptied two cans of a
chemical agent into his cell through the tray flap of his closed cell door and cut off his
supply to clean air by shoving a mattress against the outside of his door. 	Id. at 7. 	After
liberally construing Plaintiff’s complaint and reading all allegations in his favor, Plaintiff’s
Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Colbert, Paul, and Arnold for use of
excessive force can proceed for further factual development.
B. 	Defendant Officer Chief Counselor Jackson
It is unclear why Plaintiff has named Chief Counselor Jackson as a Defendant.
Plaintiff does not provide any allegations or present any claims specifically regarding this
Defendant. 	See ECF No. 1. 	A district court properly dismisses a complaint when the
plaintiff, other than naming a defendant in the caption of the complaint, fails to state any
allegations that connect the defendant with an alleged constitutional violation. 	Douglas
v. Yates, 535 F.3d 1316, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Pamel Corp. v. P.R. Highway Auth.,
621 F.2d 33, 36 (1st Cir. 1980)) (“While we do not require technical niceties in pleading,
we must demand that the complaint state with some minimal particularity how overt acts
Case 5:25-cv-00326-MTT-CHW Document 18 Filed 12/05/25 Page 7 of 12

8
of the defendant caused a legal wrong. 	Because Plaintiff has failed to put forth any
allegations as to Defendant Jackson, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendant Jackson be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim.
IV. 	Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff may proceed with his Eighth Amendment claim of
excessive 	force 	against 	Defendants 	Colbert, 	Paul, 	and 	Arnold 	for 	further 	factual
development. 	It is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Jackson
be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim.
OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections
to these recommendations with the Honorable Marc T. Treadwell, United States District
Judge, WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of this
Recommendation. 	The parties may seek an extension of time in which to file written
objections, provided a request for an extension is filed prior to the deadline for filing written
objections. 	Any 	objection 	should 	be 	no 	longer 	than 	TWENTY 	(20) 	PAGES 	in
length. 	See M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.4. 	Failure to object in accordance with the provisions of §
636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district judge’s order based on factual
and legal conclusions to which no objection was timely made. 	See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.
ORDER FOR SERVICE
Having found that Plaintiff has made a colorable constitutional violation claim
against Defendants CERT Sgt. Marlin Paul, and CERT Sgt. Arnold of Dooley State Prison,
Case 5:25-cv-00326-MTT-CHW Document 18 Filed 12/05/25 Page 8 of 12

9
as 	well 	as 	Defendant 	Sgt. 	Colbert 	who 	now 	works 	at 	Georgia 	Diagnostic 	and
Classifications Prison in Jackson, Georgia, it is accordingly ORDERED that service be
made on the Defendants and that they file an Answer, or such other response as may be
appropriate under Rule 12, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Defendant is reminded of the duty to avoid unnecessary service expenses, and of the
possible imposition of expenses for failure to waive service pursuant to Rule 4(d).
DUTY TO ADVISE OF ADDRESS CHANGE
During the pendency of this action, all parties shall keep the Clerk of this Court and
all opposing attorneys and/or parties advised of their current address. 	Failure to promptly
advise the Clerk of a change of address may result in the dismissal of a party’s pleadings.
DUTY TO PROSECUTE ACTION
Plaintiff is also advised that he must diligently prosecute his Complaint or face the
possibility that it will be dismissed under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for failure to prosecute. 	Defendant is similarly advised that she is expected to
diligently defend all allegations made against her and to file timely dispositive motions as
hereinafter directed. 	This matter will be set down for trial when the Court determines that
discovery has been completed and that all motions have been disposed of or the time for
filing dispositive motions has passed.
Case 5:25-cv-00326-MTT-CHW Document 18 Filed 12/05/25 Page 9 of 12

10
FILING AND SERVICE OF MOTIONS,
PLEADINGS, AND CORRESPONDENCE
It is the responsibility of each party to file original motions, pleadings, and
correspondence with the Clerk of Court. 	A party need not serve the opposing party by
mail if the opposing party is represented by counsel. 	In such cases, any motions,
pleadings, or correspondence shall be served electronically at the time of filing with the
Court. 	If any party is not represented by counsel, however, it is the responsibility of each
opposing party to serve copies of all motions, pleadings, and correspondence upon the
unrepresented party and to attach to said original motions, pleadings, and correspondence
filed with the Clerk of Court a certificate of service indicating who has been served and
where (i.e., at what address), when service was made, and how service was accomplished.
DISCOVERY
Plaintiff shall not commence discovery until an answer or dispositive motion has
been filed on behalf of the Defendant from whom discovery is sought by the Plaintiff. 	The
Defendant shall not commence discovery until such time as an answer or dispositive
motion has been filed. 	Once an answer or dispositive motion has been filed, the parties
are authorized to seek discovery from one another as provided in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. 	The deposition of the Plaintiff, a state prisoner, may be taken at any time
during the time period hereinafter set out provided prior arrangements are made with his
custodian. 	Plaintiff is hereby advised that failure to submit to a deposition may result
in the dismissal of his lawsuit under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Case 5:25-cv-00326-MTT-CHW Document 18 Filed 12/05/25 Page 10 of 12

11
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that discovery (including depositions and the service
of written discovery requests) shall be completed within 90 days of the date of filing of an
answer or dispositive motion by the Defendant (whichever comes first) unless an extension
is otherwise granted by the court upon a showing of good cause therefor or a protective
order is sought by the defendant and granted by the court. 	This 90-day period shall run
separately as to Plaintiff and Defendant beginning on the date of filing of Defendant’s
answer or dispositive motion (whichever comes first). The scheduling of a trial may be
advanced upon notification from the parties that no further discovery is contemplated or
that discovery has been completed prior to the deadline.
Discovery materials shall not be filed with the Clerk of Court. 	No party shall be
required to respond to any discovery not directed to him/her or served upon him/her by the
opposing counsel/party. 	The undersigned incorporates herein those parts of the Local
Rules imposing the following limitations on discovery: 	except with written permission
of the court first obtained, interrogatories may not exceed TWENTY-FIVE (25) to each
party, requests for production of documents and things under Rule 34 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure may not exceed TEN (10) requests to each party, and requests
for admissions under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may not exceed
FIFTEEN (15) requests to each party. 	No party shall be required to respond to any such
requests which exceed these limitations.
IT 	IS 	FURTHER 	ORDERED 	that 	Defendants 	comply 	with 	the 	attached
“Required Disclosure of the Existence of Video or Photographic Evidence When Plaintiff
Case 5:25-cv-00326-MTT-CHW Document 18 Filed 12/05/25 Page 11 of 12

12
Files Suit Against One or More Georgia Department of Corrections Employees Relating
to Events That Occurred During Plaintiff’s Incarceration within the Georgia Department
of Corrections.”
REQUESTS FOR DISMISSAL AND/OR JUDGMENT
The Court shall not consider requests for dismissal of or judgment in this action,
absent the filing of a motion therefor accompanied by a brief/memorandum of law citing
supporting authorities. 	Dispositive motions should be filed at the earliest time possible,
but in any event no later than one hundred - twenty (120) days from when the discovery
period begins unless otherwise directed by the Court.
SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED, this 5th day of December, 2025.
s/ Charles H. Weigle
Charles H. Weigle
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:25-cv-00326-MTT-CHW Document 18 Filed 12/05/25 Page 12 of 12