Templeton v. Bramblett et al

Filing 25

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL dismissing defendants "Lee County Jail Facility Commander" and "Lee County Jail Shift Commander" without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Clerk shall correct the caption and enter judgment as to these defendants only. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 1/20/2009. (RKM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION CLARENCE TEMPLETON, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 2:07-cv-543-FtM-29DNF

FNU BRAMBLETT, Lee County Jail Officer, Individually and in his Official Capacity, C.O. RONE, Lee County Jail Officer, Individually and in his Official Capacity, COMMANDER FNU LNU, Lee County Jail Facility Commander, Individually and in his Official Capacity, and SHIFT COMMANDER FNU LNU, Lee County Main Jail Facility Shift Commander, Individually and in his Official Capacity, Capacity, Defendants. ___________________________________ ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL This matter comes before the Court upon review of the file and Defendants Bramblett and Rone's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. #24) filed January 16, 2008.

Plaintiff, Clarence Templeton, who is proceeding pro se and was previously confined in the Lee County Jail,1 initiated his action by filing a Civil Rights Complaint Form pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Complaint," Doc. #1) on August 28, 2007 (Doc. #1) against the above named Defendants. Plaintiff completed service forms for

Defendants Bramblett and Rone, and these Defendants waived personal

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Taylor Correctional Institution.

1

service on November 18, 2007.

See Docs. ##17-23.

Defendants

Bramblett and Rone filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint on January 16, 2009 (Doc. #24). Prior to the Court expending judicial resources and directing personal service upon the Defendants identified as the "Lee County Jail Facility Commander" and "Lee County Jail Shift Commander," (collectively the "Unknown Defendants") the Court will review the Complaint as to the Unnamed Defendants pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, to determine whether the action is

"frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." (b)(2). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(a), (b)(1),

In essence, § 1915(A) is a screening process to be applied In reviewing a

sua sponte and at any time during the proceedings.

complaint, however, the courts must apply the long established rule that pro se complaints are to be liberally construed and held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys.

Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007). views all allegations as true. 1347 (11th Cir. 2004). A

And, the court

Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344,

case is deemed frivolous where the Neitzke v.

complaint lacks any arguable basis in law or fact.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Mitchell v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 294 F.3d 1349 (11th Cir. 2002); Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2001).
-2-

Frivolous claims are those

that describe "fantastic or delusional scenarios."

Bilal at 1349.

The Court recognizes that generally it is preferable to serve a pro se complaint before dismissing it as frivolous under § 1915A(b)(1). Williams v. Sec'y for the Dep't of Corr., 131 Fed. Appx. 682, 686 (11th Cir. 2005). Nonetheless, when the Court finds from the "face

of the complaint . . . that the factual allegations are clearly baseless or that the legal theories are indisputably meritless" the Court may dismiss the suit without further delay since such suits "unduly burden the courts, obscure meritorious claims, and require innocent parties to expend significant resources in their defense." Id. (quotations and citations omitted); Nietzke 490 U.S. at 327; Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992); Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1349. The standard governing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6) dismissals apply to dismissals under § 1915(e)(2)(ii). Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008); Mitchell v. Carcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997). Section

1915(e)(2)(ii) is identical to the screening language of § 1915A. Thus, a complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim if the facts as plead do not state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct.

1955, 1968-69 (2007)(abrogating Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). factual While a plaintiff is not required to provide detailed allegations, plaintiff's pleading "requires more than

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements
-3-

of

a

cause

of

action

will

not

do.

Twombly

at

1964-65.

Additionally, the court may dismiss a case when the allegations in the complaint on their face demonstrate that an affirmative defense bars recovery of the claim. 1014, 1022 (11th Cir. 2001). initial inquiry must focus Marsh v. Butler County, Ala., 268 F.3d As on this the is a § l983 action, the of two essential

presence

elements: (1) whether the person engaged in the conduct complained of was acting under color of state law; and (2) whether the alleged conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges or immunities guaranteed under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Griffin v. City of Opa-Locka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir. 2001). The only allegations in the Complaint as to the Unknown Defendants is that Plaintiff filed "two other grievances to the

Lee County Jail Facility Commander and the Shift Commander." Complaint at 11. "Both of these grievances were ignored. Id. To

Plaintiff never received any type of response at all." the extent Plaintiff argues that the Unnamed Defendants his due process rights as a result of their failure to

violated respond to

his grievances, the Court finds the Complaint fails to state a claim. Circuit] prisoner The Eleventh Circuit has held that "[w]e [the Eleventh agree does with not other have a circuits that have decided that a

constitutionally-protected

liberty

interest in an inmate grievance procedure." Fed. Appx. 876 (11th Cir.

Dunn v. Martin, 178

2006); accord Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72,
-4-

75 (4th Cir. 1994) (stating that the Constitution creates no entitlement to voluntarily established grievance procedure), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1022 (1995); Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991)(same). "`The simple fact that state law prescribed thereby

certain procedures does not mean that the procedures acquire a federal constitutional dimension.'"

Buckley v. Barlow,

997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (quoting Vruno v. Schwarzwalder, 600 F.2d 124, 130-131 (8th Cir. 1979)(quoting Slotnick v.

Staviskey, 560 F.2d 31, 34 (1st Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1077 (1978)). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. The Defendants identified as the "Lee County Jail

Facility Commander" and "Lee County Jail Shift Commander" are DISMISSED without prejudice from this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii). 2. The Clerk shall correct the caption and enter judgment

accordingly as to these Defendants only. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida, on this of January, 2009. 20th day

SA: hmk Copies: All Parties of Record -5-