## Facts

- Brent Jacoby, an Alabama state prisoner, filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages for events at St. Clair Correctional Facility.
- Jacoby alleged he told prison officials that another prisoner threatened to sexually assault him and that officials said they would move him to a less violent dorm but did not do so.
- While he remained in the original dorm, Jacoby alleged he was extorted, “bought and sold” by other prisoners, and repeatedly forced to perform sexual acts.
- Jacoby reported the threats and assaults to prison staff; he alleged the information was relayed to Lieutenant Angela Gordy, the facility’s Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) compliance manager.
- Jacoby alleged Gordy told him the prison could not place him in protective custody because he had not been assaulted “that specific day,” and she assured him he would be moved soon, but he was not moved.
- Jacoby alleged he was later sold to two prisoners, including Willie Jenkins, who allegedly forced Jacoby to take drugs and perform sexual acts.
- Jacoby alleged Jenkins locked him in a cell, beat him, and violently sexually assaulted him after Jenkins believed Jacoby had smoked one of Jenkins’s joints.
- Jacoby alleged he remained trapped until the next day, when a “code” was called during a fight between Jenkins and the other prisoner who claimed ownership of Jacoby; Jacoby then ran to the shift office seeking medical attention.
- Jacoby alleged officials Terry Loggins, Mary Surrett, Arnaldo Mercado, and an unidentified PREA coordinator were notified after the rape but did not ensure a proper rape exam; he alleged officers would not remove his handcuffs and no exam was performed.
- Jacoby also alleged these post-assault officials did not collect evidence (such as bedding) or gather witness information, and no disciplinary action or prosecution followed against Jenkins or others involved in the earlier abuse.
- The case came before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on PLRA screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, resulting in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

## Issues

1. Whether Jacoby’s allegations stated a plausible Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim based on deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm from other inmates.
2. Whether alleged violations of PREA can be enforced through § 1983 as a private claim for damages.
3. Whether a prisoner can state a § 1983 claim based only on officials’ alleged failure to investigate, collect evidence, discipline, or pursue prosecution after an assault.
4. Whether the complaint’s claims against the unidentified PREA coordinator and the I&I officials (Loggins, Surrett, and Mercado) should be dismissed at screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

## Decision

- The magistrate judge recommended that Jacoby’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim proceed against Lt. Angela Gordy based on allegations that she knew of specific threats and abuse and failed to take protective measures.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissing claims premised on PREA because PREA does not create a private right of action enforceable for damages under § 1983.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissing claims based on an asserted right to a particular investigation, evidence collection, discipline, or prosecution, concluding those theories did not state an independent constitutional claim.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the claims against the unidentified PREA coordinator and the I&I officials (Loggins, Surrett, and Mercado) to the extent they were based on PREA or on alleged failures to investigate or prosecute.
- The district judge later adopted the report in part and recommitted the matter for further proceedings on Jacoby’s failure-to-protect claim against Gordy, leaving that claim as the surviving theory at the screening stage.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a court must screen prisoner complaints against governmental actors and dismiss any claim that is frivolous, malicious, seeks damages from an immune defendant, or fails to state a claim; the plausibility standard applied is consistent with Rule 12(b)(6).
- An Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim requires allegations that the defendant was subjectively aware of a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded it (deliberate indifference), consistent with Farmer v. Brennan.
- PREA does not itself create a private cause of action for damages and does not, standing alone, supply enforceable rights through § 1983.
- A prisoner has no standalone federal constitutional right to have officials conduct a particular investigation, collect specific evidence, impose discipline on others, or initiate criminal prosecution; allegations limited to deficient investigation or non-prosecution do not state a § 1983 claim.

## Conclusion

On PLRA screening, the court allowed Jacoby’s Eighth Amendment claim to proceed only against the PREA compliance manager whom he alleged knew he faced ongoing, specific risks of sexual abuse yet failed to secure protective housing, while dismissing PREA-based theories and claims grounded solely in alleged failures to investigate, collect evidence, discipline, or prosecute after the assault.


Jacoby v. PREA Coordinator, 2017 WL 2962858 (2017)