Luker v. Escambia County Detention Center

Filing 102

ORDER denying 38 Motion to Amend Complaint; denying 43 Motion to Amend Complaint; denying 46 Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins on 9/13/2012. copy mailed to plf. (sdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CLARENCE LUKER, AIS# 276254,

:
:
:
:
: CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-00341-CB-B
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
vs.
NICOLE STEELE,
Defendant.

ORDER
This action is before the Court on several motions to amend
(Docs.

38,

43,

and

46),

filed

by

Plaintiff.

Each

will

be

addressed in turn.
1.(Doc. 38).
Plaintiff’s

Motion

to

Amend

(Doc.

38)

seeks

to

remove

Sheriff Grover Smith as a defendant, and in his place include an
unknown Escambia County Detention Center Administrator. Sheriff
Smith, however, is not a Defendant to this action inasmuch as
Plaintiff’s prior attempt to add him as a Defendant was denied.
(Docs. 25, 27, 30, 34 at 4-6). Thus, this request is DENIED.
Also, Plaintiff requests that the Court seek the name of
the unidentified administrator. See Brown v. Sikes, 212 F.3d
1205,

1209

n.4

(11th

Cir.

2000)

(Appellate

courts

have

acknowledged the difficulties faced by a prisoner in identifying
alleged wrongdoers before filing a complaint and have directed

district courts to assist prisoners in discovering the identity
of the proper defendants.”); Maclin v. Paulson, 627 F.2d 83, 87
(7th

Cir.

1980)

(“[W]hen

.

.

.

a

party

is

ignorant

of

defendants’ true identity, it is unnecessary to name them until
their identity can be learned through discovery or through the
aid of the trial court.”). In this case, the identification of
the unnamed Administrator is of no consequence, for the reasons
stated below.
Under

42

U.S.C.

§

1983,

a

plaintiff

must

sufficiently

allege (1) that an act or omission deprived him of a right,
privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of
the

United

States;

and

(2)

that

the

act

or

omission

was

committed by a person acting under color of state law. 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983; Hale v. Tallapoosa Cnty., 50 F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th Cir.
1995).

Although

the

complaint

need

not

set

forth

detailed

factual allegations, the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts
to render the claim “plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Plaintiff alleges absolutely no facts against the unnamed
administrator

which

would

indicate

that

his

constitutional

rights have been violated by a person acting under color of
state law. See Washington v. Bauer, 149 F. App'x 867, 870 (11th
Cir. 2005) (holding a § 1983 plaintiff is required to allege
with some specificity in his complaint the facts which make out
2

his claim). Therefore, Plaintiff’s attempt to add an unnamed
Administrator as a Defendant is DENIED.
2. (Doc. 43)
In

Plaintiff’s

“Motion

to

Amend

Complaint

and

to

Add

Witnesses on Warrant That Plaintiff Signed Against George Vivian
to Defendants” (Doc. 43), Plaintiff seeks to add an unnamed
Escambia

County

Detention

Center

Administrator

in

place

of

Sheriff Grover because “they w[]ere sup[p]ose to be training
Nicole Steele to do her job properly, and failed to do so.”
Plaintiff does not explain how the Administrator failed to train
Defendant Steele and how this failure caused a deprivation of
his constitutional rights.
In

order

to

state

a

claim

for

failure

to

train

or

supervise, Plaintiff must establish that the failure to train or
supervise

was

the

moving

force

behind

the

deprivation

of

a

constitutional right. City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S.
378, 385, 389, 109 S. Ct. 1197, 1203, 1205, 103 L. Ed. 2d 412
(1989); McKinney v. DeKalb Cnty., Ga., 997 F.2d 1440, 1443 (11th
Cir. 1993). Plaintiff has alleged no facts identifying what the
failure was and then connecting the failure to a constitutional
deprivation. Thus, he has failed to state a claim against the
Administrator. When an amendment is futile because it is subject
to dismissal, permission to amend may be denied. Halliburton &
Assocs. v. Henderson, Few & Co., 774 F.2d 441, 444 (11th Cir.
3

1985). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to add the Administrator
as a Defendant is DENIED because such an amendment is subject to
dismissal

for

failure

to

state

a

claim

upon

again

seeks

to

which

can

be

granted.
Additionally,

Plaintiff

dismiss

Sheriff

Grover Smith as a Defendant. For the above stated reasons, this
request is again DENIED.
Furthermore,

Plaintiff

makes

allegations

about

the

witnesses on the warrant that he signed against his assailant,
but these allegations are not clear. Either Plaintiff wants to
add witnesses on warrant or he seeks to add as Defendants in
this action the witnesses listed on the warrant. A person who is
being

identified

as

a

defendant

needs

to

be

specifically

identified by a name or by specific position so the person is
identifiable and process can be served on the person. Dean v.
Barber,

951

F.2d

1210,

1215-1216

(11th

Cir.

1992).

And,

Plaintiff is required to allege what the person did to violate
his constitutional rights. Plaintiff’s motion is devoid of any
such allegations. On the other hand, if Plaintiff is requesting
that this Court somehow add persons to the state-court warrant,
federal

courts

do

not

involve

themselves

in

state

court

proceedings. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46, 91 S. Ct. 746,
751, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669

(1971) (there is a “fundamental policy

4

against federal interference with state criminal prosecutions”).
Thus, Plaintiff’s request regarding the warrant is DENIED.
3. (Doc. 46).
In

this

Motion

to

Amend

Complaint

(Doc.

46),

Plaintiff

seeks to add Correctional Officers Jonathan Williams and Heath
Wiggins. Plaintiff alleges that these officer “w[]ere just as
responsible as C/O Nicole Steele was for not tr[y]ing to prevent
what

happened.”

factual

This

information

constitutional

right

allegation

does

showing

that

by

named

each

not

he

contain

was

officer.

sufficient

deprived
See

of

a

Zatler

v.

Wainwright, 802 F.2d 397, 401 (11th Cir. 1986) (holding that in
a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must causally connect a defendant’s
actions, omissions, customs, or policies to a deprivation of the
plaintiff’s constitutional or federal rights in order to state a
claim under § 1983). Furthermore, in order to state a claim, a
complaint must plead “‘enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face’” and “‘to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level.’” Speaker v. United States Dep’t of
Health & Human Servs. Ctrs. for Disease & Prevention, 623 F.3d
1371, 1380 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570,
127 S. Ct. at 1974-65). And, the allegations “must ‘allow[] the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.’” Id. (quoting Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 566 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d
5

868 (2009)). Plaintiff’s allegation does not establish that a
constitutional right was violated by each officer. Thus, the
lack of facts prevents Plaintiff from making a showing that he
has a plausible claim for a violation of a constitutional right
by each officer.

Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

DONE this 13th day of September, 2012.
/s/ SONJA F. BIVINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6