TAYLOR v. BURGAMY et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
GRADY TAYLOR, JR., :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Case No. 5:25-cv-484-MTT-ALS
:
Investigator TREY :
BURGAMY, et al., :
:
Defendants. :
ORDER
Plaintiff Grady Taylor, Jr., a prisoner at Jefferson County Correctional Institution
in Louisville, Georgia, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc.
1). He also moved for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Doc. 2). Thereafter, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP”), and he was ordered to pay an initial partial filing fee. (Doc. 6).
Now that the initial partial filing fee has been paid, Plaintiff’s Complaint is ripe for
preliminary review. On that review, Plaintiff is ORDERED to recast his Complaint if he
wishes to proceed with this action.
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
Case 5:25-cv-00484-MTT-ALS Document 9 Filed 05/13/26 Page 1 of 7

2
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, 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
Case 5:25-cv-00484-MTT-ALS Document 9 Filed 05/13/26 Page 2 of 7

3
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).
II. Factual Allegations
Plaintiff’s Complaint is somewhat hard to decipher because his handwriting is
difficult to read in places and also because Plaintiff does not present his factual allegations
in a linear manner. (Doc. 1, at 6). Plaintiff appears to allege that Investigator Trey
Burgamy used Plaintiff as a confidential informant to affect multiple arrests although
Plaintiff says he did not agree to be a confidential informant. Id. at 6-7.
Additionally, Plaintiff contends that Assistant District Attorney Bruna Morehead,
County Solicitor Michael Howell, and Jailer Trishanne Mountain identified Plaintiff as an
informant in front of various people. Id. at 7. Plaintiff’s allegations about these statements
are not entirely clear, as Plaintiff has not included much factual context as to what was
said, when the statements were made, or why they were made. See id.
III. Plaintiff’s Claims
As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s claims appear on the face of the Complaint to be
barred by the statute of limitations. Constitutional claims raised under § 1983 are “subject
to the statute of limitations governing personal injury actions in the state where the § 1983
action has been brought.” McNair v Allen, 515 F.3d 1168, 1173 (11th Cir. 2008).
Case 5:25-cv-00484-MTT-ALS Document 9 Filed 05/13/26 Page 3 of 7

4
The limitations period in Georgia is two (2) years. O.C.G.A. § 9–3–33; Porter v. Ray, 461
F.3d 1315, 1323 (11th Cir. 2006).
On the face of the Complaint, Plaintiff’s claims appear to be untimely. Plaintiff
asserts that the events underlying his complaint occurred between June 2022 and July
2023. (Doc. 1, at 6). To the extent that this is accurate, his claims accrued by July 2023,
and he was required to bring this case by July 2025. Plaintiff, however, did not sign his
Complaint until October 1, 2025. Id. at 8. Moreover, he does not allege any facts to suggest
that the running of the statute of limitations was tolled. The Court notes, however, that
Plaintiff has not provided specific dates with regard to the allegations within his statement
of facts, and thus, it is not entirely clear when each event that he complains about
occurred. (See generally Doc. 1).
Even if the Complaint is not barred by the statute of limitations, Plaintiff’s
Complaint as currently drafted does not state a viable claim for relief. For example,
Plaintiff contends that his due process rights were violated. However, the Due Process
Clause protects against deprivations of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974) (recognizing that prisoners “may
not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”). Plaintiff’s
allegations do not show any such deprivation to support a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1
Broadly construing Plaintiff’s allegations, his Complaint could be read as asserting
that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety. However, to state an Eighth
1 At one point in the Complaint, it appears possible that Plaintiff may be making allegations about the
propriety of his conviction. (Doc. 1, at 7). Any claim challenging Plaintiff’s conviction or sentence would
have to be brought in a habeas corpus petition, rather than a § 1983 action, because habeas corpus is a state
prisoner’s sole remedy for a state prisoner challenging his confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.
475, 500 (1973) (“[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical
imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a
speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.”).
Case 5:25-cv-00484-MTT-ALS Document 9 Filed 05/13/26 Page 4 of 7

5
Amendment claim for exposure to unsafe conditions, a prisoner must allege facts to show
the existence of a prison condition that is extreme and poses an unreasonable risk to the
prisoner’s health or safety. See Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278, 1289 (11th Cir. 2004).
Additionally, the prisoner must allege facts to show that the defendant acted with
deliberate indifference to the condition, which requires that the defendant “was actually
aware that his own conduct caused a risk of serious harm to the plaintiff.” Wade, 106
F.4th at 1261.
Plaintiff makes general allegations that he was exposed to danger by being
improperly used and/or identified as a confidential informant, but he has not alleged
specific facts showing any actual danger. As noted above, Plaintiff asserts that the events
underlying the Complaint took place in 2022 and 2023, but he does not set forth any facts
to show that he has been injured since that time or that he has faced any specific threat of
danger.
Likewise, as noted above, Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing the circumstances
under which the statements were made. Nor has he asserted facts to show what the
defendants knew when they made these statements. Thus, Plaintiff has not stated a
deliberate indifference claim.2
IV. Order to Recast
As set forth above, Plaintiff’s claims appear to be barred by the statute of
limitations. And even if the Complaint is timely, Plaintiff has not stated a claim for which
relief may be granted. Nevertheless, Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to recast his
Complaint to try to state a claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to recast his
2 Plaintiff also mentions intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander, and defamation, but these are
state law claims. In the absence of a federal claim, it would be appropriate for the Court to decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over any state claims.
Case 5:25-cv-00484-MTT-ALS Document 9 Filed 05/13/26 Page 5 of 7

6
Complaint if he wishes to proceed with this case. When doing so, Plaintiff must write
legibly. Plaintiff must list each defendant in the heading of his recast complaint. In the
body of his recast complaint, Plaintiff must again list each defendant by name and tell the
Court exactly how and when that defendant allegedly violated Plaintiff’s constitutional or
federal statutory rights. Plaintiff’s recast complaint should be no longer than ten (10)
pages. Plaintiff may not attach any exhibits, declarations, or other attachments to the
recast complaint.
Plaintiff is notified that only one sole operating complaint is permissible, and his
recast complaint will supersede and take the place of his original complaint. See 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”). The Court will
not refer to any previous complaints or filings to determine if Plaintiff has stated a claim,
and Plaintiff must include all relevant factual information necessary for the Court to
evaluate his claims in the recast complaint.
In recasting his Complaint, it is recommended that Plaintiff list numbered
responses to the following questions (to the extent possible) along with the name of each
defendant:
(1) What did this defendant do (or not do) to violate your rights? In other
words: What was the extent of this defendant’s authority or role in the
unconstitutional conduct? Is he a supervisory official? Was the defendant
personally involved in the constitutional violation? If not, did his actions
otherwise cause the unconstitutional action? How do you know?
(2) When and where did each action occur (to the extent memory allows)?
(3) How were you injured as a result of this defendant’s actions or decisions?
If your injury is related to a change in the conditions of your confinement,
please describe how those conditions differ from those in general
population. If you have been physically injured, explain the extent of your
injuries and any medical care requested or provided.
Case 5:25-cv-00484-MTT-ALS Document 9 Filed 05/13/26 Page 6 of 7

7
(4) How and when did this defendant learn of your injuries or otherwise
become aware of a substantial risk that you could suffer a serious injury?
(5) What did this defendant do (or not do) in response to this knowledge?
(6) What relief you seek from this defendant?
Plaintiff should state his claims as simply as possible; he also need not use legal
terminology or cite any specific statute or case law to state a claim, although the Court
will presume that Plaintiff’s claims are brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless otherwise
specified. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
CONCLUSION
As set forth above, Plaintiff has not stated a claim for relief. Nevertheless, he will
be given an opportunity to file a recast complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED to
file a recast complaint consistent with this order if he desires to proceed with this case.
Plaintiff shall have FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date of this Order to file his recast
complaint. Plaintiff must also notify the Court immediately and in writing of any change
in his mailing address. Plaintiff’s failure to fully and timely comply with this
Order may result in the dismissal of this case.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward Plaintiff a blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983 form along
with his service copy of this order (with the civil action number showing on both). There
shall be no service in this case pending further order of the Court.
SO ORDERED, this 13th day of May, 2026.
s/ ALFREDA L. SHEPPARD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-00484-MTT-ALS Document 9 Filed 05/13/26 Page 7 of 7