Feedback

Akins V Dixon

           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              
             MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA                              
                FORT MYERS DIVISION                                  

THOMAS AKINS,                                                             

     Plaintiff,                                                      

v.                               Case No.:  2:25-cv-416-SPC-KCD           

S. PAYNE et al.,                                                          

     Defendants.                                                     
                         /                                           
                OPINION AND ORDER                                    
Before the Court is Plaintiff Thomas Akins’ Amended Complaint (Doc.  
17).  Akins is a prisoner of the Florida Department of Corrections, and he sues 
state prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  Akins is proceeding in forma 
pauperis, so the Court reviewed his original complaint under 28 U.S.C. §  
1915(e)(2).  The Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and 
gave Akins leave to amend.  Akins’ amended complaint asserts the same basic 
facts as the first, and it likewise fails to state a claim.               
Federal  Rule  of  Civil  Procedure  12(b)(6)  provides  the  standard  for 
screening complaints under § 1915.  Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1485 
(11th Cir. 1997).  A district court should dismiss a claim when a party does not 
plead facts that make the claim facially plausible.  See  Bell Atl. Corp. v. 
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).  A claim is facially plausible when a court 
can draw a reasonable inference, based on facts pled, that the opposing party 
is liable for the alleged misconduct.  See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009).  This plausibility standard requires “more than a sheer possibility that 
a defendant has acted unlawfully.”  Id.  (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 
(internal quotation marks omitted)).  And a plaintiff must allege more than 
labels and conclusions amounting to a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action.  Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.                               
Akins alleges that on February 1, 2025, a heater in his cell started to 
emit a burning smell, excessive heat, and smoke.  Akins’ cellmate alerted 
defendant  Gordon,  who  radioed  defendant  Steider  for  assistance.    Steider 

instructed  the  control  booth  to  shut  off  the  heater  system.    The  heater 
continued discharging smoke and heat.  Then it exploded, partially covering 
Akins in dust and an unknown white substance.  The smoke caused Akins to  
cough, pant, and retch.  Steider ordered Akins and his cellmate to pack their 

belongings and escorted them to the nursing station.  The nurses examined 
and cleared Akins and his cellmate.  Akins was escorted to a shower and   
assigned a new cell.                                                      
Akins submitted a sick call request a few days later, complaining of a 

ringing sound in his ear.  Medical staff examined Akins on February 11, 2025, 
gave him ear medication, and scheduled an appointment for further treatment.  
Nevertheless, Akins’ ear still rings whenever he hears a loud popping sound. 
Akins  blames  the  malfunctioning  heater  on  old  wiring  and  poor 
maintenance.  He and other inmates complained to defendants Payne, Brock, 

and Hills a few weeks before the incident that the heaters were not working.  
The defendants advised the dormitory that maintenance would fix the heaters.  
A crew worked on the heaters a few days later, but the heater in Akins’ cell 
still did not work reliably.  Akins’ argues the prison should have cleaned the 

heaters and replaced the wiring.                                          
Akins argues Payne, Brock, Hills, Gordon, and Steider showed deliberate 
indifference to cruel and unsafe conditions caused by the faulty heater.  He 
seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, nominal damages, punitive damages 

and $250,000 compensatory damages against each defendant.                 
Akins’ amended complaint fails to state a claim for the same reasons as 
the original.1  Akins does not allege extreme conditions prior to February 1, 
2025, that created an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his health or 

safety.  A “prisoner’s mere discomfort, without more, does not offend the Eighth 
Amendment.”  Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278, 1295 (11th Cir. 2004).  Akins 
does not claim, for example, that he was exposed to severely cold temperatures 
for an extended time.  See id.  What is more, Payne, Brock, and Hills reacted 

reasonably to complaints about the heating system by arranging maintenance.  

1 The Court summarized the law governing Eighth Amendment challenges to the conditions 
of a prisoner’s confinement in its order dismissing Akins’ original complaint.  (See Doc. 16). 
Gordon and Steider also acted reasonably when the heater in Akins’ cell began 
malfunctioning.  First, they called the control desk to shut off the heater.  When 
it exploded, they removed Akins from his cell and escorted him to the nurse’s 
station, where nurses examined and cleared Akins.  Akins was then provided 
a shower and assigned a new cell.  None of the defendants can be found liable 
under the Eighth Amendment because they responded reasonably to the risks 
they observed.  See Wade v. McDade,  106 F.4th 1251,  1262 (11th Cir. 2024). 
 Accordingly, it is 
 ORDERED: 
 Thomas Akins’ Amended Complaint (Doc.  17) is DISMISSED without 
prejudice.  The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions and 
deadlines, enter judgment, and close this case. 
 DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on July 28, 2025. 

                                       UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
SA: FTMP-1 
Copies:  All Parties of Record