BYRD v. CRUZ et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
KEITH BYRD,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No.: 3:25cv785/TKW/ZCB
T. DUDLEY, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	After performing its
screening duties under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(a)-(b), the
Court identified several deficiencies in Plaintiff’s amended complaint.
(Doc. 9). Plaintiff has now filed a second amended complaint. (Doc. 10).
The 	Court 	is 	required 	to 	screen 	Plaintiff’s 	second 	amended
complaint to determine if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from immune
defendants. 	28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(a)-(b). 	Because Plaintiff
Case 3:25-cv-00785-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 9

2
fails to state a claim against Defendants J. Smith, M. Morgan, and T.
Dudley, Plaintiff’s claims against those Defendants should be dismissed.1
I. Plaintiff’s Allegations2
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint names five Defendants who
are employees at Blackwater River Correctional Facility: (1) Officer Cruz;
(2) Sgt. Barret; (3) Chief of Security J. Smith; (4) Assistant Facility
Administrative Operator M. Morgan; and (5) Facility Administrator T.
Dudley. 	(Doc. 10 at 2-5). 	He sues them all in their individual capacity.
(Id.).
Plaintiff alleges that on October 22, 2023, Defendants Officer Cruz
and Sgt. Barret escorted him to the shower from medical. 	(Id. at 6).
Defendants Cruz and Sgt. Barret had overheard Plaintiff telling medical
staff that he would be “writing Grievances on them.” 	(Id.). 	Plaintiff
alleges that Officer Cruz and Sgt. Barret retaliated against him by
1 The Court previously provided Plaintiff an opportunity to amend after
explaining to him deficiencies in his prior pleadings. 	(Docs. 7, 9).
Nonetheless, 	Plaintiff’s 	second 	amended 	complaint 	still 	contains
deficiencies. 	See generally Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th
Cir. 2001) (stating that a plaintiff typically “must be given at least one
chance to amend the complaint before the district court dismisses the
action”).
2 Plaintiff’s allegations are assumed true at this stage. DeVillier v. Texas,
601 U.S. 285, 288 n.1 (2024).
Case 3:25-cv-00785-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 9

3
punching him in the face and kicking him in the chest. 	(Id.). 	Plaintiff
claims he suffered a broken jaw. 	(Id.). 	Plaintiff also alleges that on
September 26, 2024, Defendant Sgt. Barret failed to protect him from an
attack by another inmate. (Id. at 8).
Plaintiff alleges that he “complain[ed]” to Defendants J. Smith, M.
Morgan, and T. Dudley about these incidents. 	(Id. at 7, 9). 	He accuses
these Defendants of failing to investigate the incidents, failing to act on
his grievances, and failing to transfer him for his safety. (Id.).
Plaintiff brings Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants.
(Id. at 10). He seeks monetary damages. (Id.).
II. Statutory Screening Standard
To survive dismissal at the screening phase, “a complaint must
contain 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) (internal quotation marks omitted). 	The plausibility standard is
met only where the facts alleged enable “the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 	Id.
Plausibility means “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully.” 	Id. 	“Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely
Case 3:25-cv-00785-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 9

4
consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between
possibility 	and 	plausibility 	of 	entitlement 	to 	relief.” 	Id. 	(internal
quotation marks omitted).
Whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is “a context-
specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. The Court is “not
bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.”
Id. at 678 (internal quotation marks omitted). And “bare assertions” that
“amount to nothing more than a formulaic recitation of the elements” of
a claim “are conclusory and not entitled to be assumed true.” 	Id. at 681
(internal quotation marks omitted). “While legal conclusions can provide
the 	framework 	of 	a 	complaint, 	they 	must 	be 	supported 	by 	factual
allegations.” 	Id. at 679.
III. Discussion
In Plaintiff’s previous version of his complaint, he sought to bring
due process claims against Defendants Smith, Morgan, and Dudley for
“disregarding” his grievances. (Doc. 8 at 9). Now, Plaintiff tries to couch
his claims against Defendants Smith, Morgan, and Dudley as Eighth
Amendment claims. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Smith, the Chief of
Case 3:25-cv-00785-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 02/04/26 Page 4 of 9

5
Security at Blackwater, violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to
investigate the incidents on October 22, 2023, and September 26, 2024,
after Plaintiff complained. 	(Doc. 10 at 10). 	Plaintiff also alleges that
Defendants 	Morgan 	and 	Dudley, 	two 	administrative 	officials 	at
Blackwater, failed to secure his safety by transferring him after he asked
for a transfer. (Id.).
As Plaintiff was previously told, the Eleventh Circuit has held that
denying grievances does not violate an inmate’s constitutional rights.
Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1177-78 (11th Cir. 2011). 	Because
the crux of Plaintiff’s complaints against Smith, Morgan, and Dudley has
to do with their response to his “complaints” or grievances, Plaintiff fails
to 	allege 	that 	Defendants Smith, Morgan, 	and 	Dudley violated his
constitutional rights. See, e.g., Coleman v. Bowden, 797 F. App’x 422, 427
(11th 	Cir. 	2019) (affirming 	district 	court’s dismissal of claim when
defendant’s only involvement in the case was reviewing an “emergency”
grievance and returning the grievance without action); Jackson v. Fla.
State Hosp., No. 3:20cv200, 2020 WL 5239116, at *2 (N.D. Fla. June 26,
2020) 	(“Where 	a 	state 	actor’s 	role 	is 	limited 	to 	the 	denial 	of
administrative grievances, or the failure to act with respect to such
Case 3:25-cv-00785-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 02/04/26 Page 5 of 9

6
grievances, such state actors are not liable under § 1983 on the theory
that their actions constituted an acquiescence with respect to the alleged
unconstitutional conduct.”).
Moreover, 	Plaintiff’s 	allegations 	of 	Defendants’ 	failure 	to
investigate or transfer Plaintiff after the incidents do not rise to the level
of a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The failure to investigate
Plaintiff’s claims in a manner satisfactory to him is not a constitutional
violation. 	See, e.g., Vinyard v. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340, 1356 (11th Cir.
2002) (noting an arrestee had no constitutional right to an investigation
following plaintiff’s complaint of excessive force); Mallory v. Hetzel, No.
2:12cv1011, 	2016 	WL 	5030469, 	at 	*14 	(M.D. 	Ala. 	Aug. 	26, 	2016)
(recognizing “[i]nmates simply do not enjoy a constitutional right to an
investigation of any kind by government officials”). 	“The Constitution
does not require officials to investigate or otherwise correct wrongdoing
after it has happened.” Jacoby v. PREA Coordinator, No. 5:17cv53, 2017
WL 2962858, at *5 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 4, 2017). And Plaintiff is not entitled
to be housed in a facility of his choosing. 	See, e.g., Miller v. Garner, No.
699-83, 2001 WL 35184918, at *5 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 28, 2001) (“By denying
Case 3:25-cv-00785-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 02/04/26 Page 6 of 9

7
Plaintiff 	a 	transfer 	from 	GSP 	to 	another 	facility 	of 	his 	choosing,
Defendants did not violate any recognized constitutional right.”).
To state an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference or failure-
to-protect claim, Plaintiff must assert facts which demonstrate that
Defendants knew of and disregarded “an excessive risk” to his health or
safety. 	Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). 	Plaintiff has
alleged no such facts here. He does not allege Smith, Morgan, or Dudley
were aware of any risk to his health or safety prior to the harms occurring
on October 22, 2023, and September 26, 2024. 	Rather, Plaintiff states
that 	he 	complained 	to 	them 	only 	after 	these 	incidents 	happened.
Plaintiff, therefore, has failed to plausibly allege that Defendants Smith,
Morgan, and Dudley were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of
serious harm or failed to protect him. 	See Jacoby, 2017 WL 2962858, at
*5 (dismissing plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for failure to state a
claim when plaintiff alleged defendants failed to investigate incidents
after 	the 	fact); 	Williams 	v. 	Warden, 	Century 	Corr. 	Inst., 	No.
3:25cv1414/AW/HTC, 2025 WL 3635028, at **4-5 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 16,
2025) (dismissing plaintiff’s failure-to-protect claim because plaintiff did
Case 3:25-cv-00785-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 02/04/26 Page 7 of 9

8
not allege defendants were aware of a sufficiently serious threat to the
inmate’s safety).
Finally, to the extent Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to
follow the institution’s procedures in responding to his complaints, the
failure of state prison officials to follow their own procedures does not, of
itself, violation the Constitution. 	See, e.g., Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S.
472, 481-82 (1995) (recognizing prison procedures do not “confer rights
on inmates”).
IV. 	Conclusion
For the reasons above, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants J.
Smith, M. Morgan, and T. Dudley be DISMISSED for failure to state a
claim 	upon 	which 	relief 	may 	be 	granted 	under 	28 	U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
2. 	This matter be recommitted to the undersigned for further
proceedings on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims of excessive force
and failure to protect claims against Defendants Officer Cruz and Sgt.
Barret.
Case 3:25-cv-00785-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 02/04/26 Page 8 of 9

9
At Pensacola, Florida, this 4th day of February 2026.
/s/ Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice to the Parties
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must
be 	filed 	within 	fourteen 	days 	of 	the 	date 	of 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may 	appear 	on 	the
electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only and does not control.
An objecting party must serve a copy of the objections on all other parties.
A 	party 	who 	fails 	to 	object 	to 	the 	magistrate 	judge’s 	findings 	or
recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the
right 	to 	challenge 	on 	appeal 	the 	district 	court’s 	order 	based 	on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28
U.S.C. § 636.
Case 3:25-cv-00785-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 02/04/26 Page 9 of 9