Monroe v. Charlotte County Jail et al
Filing
7
OPINION AND ORDER dismissing with prejudice all claims against the Charlotte County Jail, Florida Department of Financial Services, and Florida Department of Health pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii); dismissing without prejud ice all claims against Corizon and the Sheriff of Charlotte County for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 14 days of this Order. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 12/3/2015. (RKR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER DALE MONROE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 2:15-cv-729-FtM-99MRM
CHARLOTTE
COUNTY
JAIL,
Sheriff, CORIZON HEALTH INC.,
DEPARTMENT
OF
FINANCIAL
SERVICES, and DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Christopher Dale Monroe (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner
at the Charlotte County Jail in Punta Gorda, Florida.
Proceeding
pro se, Plaintiff initiated this action against the Charlotte County
Jail (Sheriff), Corizon Health, Inc. (“Corizon”), Department of
Financial Services, and Department of Health by filing a complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1, filed November 24, 2015).
Because Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc.
2), his complaint must be reviewed to determine whether it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). Upon
review, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to state a
claim and that dismissal of the complaint is warranted.
However,
Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to amend his complaint.
I.
Legal Standards
A federal district court is required to review a civil complaint
filed in forma pauperis and to dismiss any such complaint that is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
In essence, § 1915(e)(2) is a
screening process to be applied sua sponte and at any time during
the proceedings.
The mandatory language of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 applies
to all proceedings in forma pauperis.
The section provides:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion
thereof, that may have been paid, the court
shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that(A)
the allegation of poverty is untrue;
or
(B) the action or appeal(i)
is frivolous or malicious;
(ii)
fails to state a claim on
which
relief
may
be
granted; or
(iii)
seeks
monetary
relief
against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
In making the above determinations, all factual allegations in
the complaint must be viewed as true. Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d
1344, 1347 (11th Cir. 2004).
Moreover, the Court must read the
plaintiff’s pro se allegations in a liberal fashion. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).
- 2 -
A
complaint
may
be
dismissed
as
frivolous
under
§
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) where it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
A claim is frivolous
as a matter of law where, inter alia, the defendants are immune from
suit or the claim seeks to enforce a right that clearly does not
exist. Id. at 327.
Dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii) for failure to state
a claim are governed by the same standard as Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483,
1485 (11th Cir. 1997).
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint may be
dismissed if the facts as pleaded do not state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face. See Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544 (2007) (retiring the “no set of facts” language previously
used to describe the motion to dismiss standard and determining that
because the plaintiffs had not nudged their “claims across the line
from conceivable to plausible,” their complaint must be dismissed
for failure to state a claim).
A complaint is also subject to
dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) “when its allegations, on their face,
show that an affirmative defense bars recovery on the claim.” Cottone
v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1357 (11th Cir. 2003).
II.
Complaint
Plaintiff asserts that he has not received adequate medical
care at the Charlotte County Jail for a skin condition that can cause
scars on his penis, upper thighs, buttocks, and chest (Doc. 1 at 5-
- 3 -
6).
He claims that, on two separate occasions, his declared medical
emergencies were ignored by medical staff at the jail.
He asserts
that he has not received prescribed medications or medicated shampoo
to help with his condition.
Plaintiff asks the Court to ensure that he receive proper
medical treatment and compensation for mental anguish and pain and
suffering (Doc. 1 at 6-7).
III. Analysis
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 imposes liability on one who, under color
of state law, deprives a person “of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
To articulate a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that:
(1)
a
defendant
deprived
him
of
a
right
secured
under
the
Constitution or federal law; and (2) such deprivation occurred under
color of state law. Arrington v. Cobb County, 139 F.3d 865, 872 (11th
Cir. 1998).
In addition, where a plaintiff seeks to impose liability
on one who is not an active participant in the alleged constitutional
deprivation, that plaintiff must allege and establish an affirmative
causal
connection
between
the
defendant's
conduct
and
the
constitutional deprivation. Williams v. Bennett, 689 F.2d 1370,
1380–1381 (11th Cir. 1982).
- 4 -
A.
Defendants Charlotte County Jail, Department of Financial
Services, and Department of Health are dismissed as
improper defendants in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint
In order to bring a viable § 1983 action, the defendant sued
must be an entity that is subject to being sued. Dean v. Barber, 951
F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992).
A correctional facility or the
jail is not a proper defendant in a case brought under 42 U.S.C. §
1983.
The jail is not an actionable legal entity because it does
not enjoy a separate legal existence independent of the County or
the Sheriff's Office. Mayes v. Elrod, 470 F. Supp. 1188, 1192 (N.D.
Ill. 1979).
The capacity of a governmental corporation to be sued
in federal court is governed by the law of the state in which the
district court is located. Dean, 951 F.2d at 1214.
Florida law does
not recognize a jail facility as a legal entity separate and apart
from
the
Sheriff
charged
with
its
generally Chapter 30, Florida Statues.
operation
and
control.
See
Thus, the Charlotte County
Jail must be dismissed with prejudice as a defendant pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). See Marsden v. Federal Bureau of Prisons,
856 F. Supp. 832, 836 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); Barber, 951 F.2d at 1214
(noting that sheriff's departments and police departments are not
legal entities subject to suit under § 1983); De La Garza v.
Kandiyohi
County
Jail,
18
F.
App’x
436,
437
(8th
Cir.
2001)
(affirming dismissal of county jail for failure to state a claim
because the jail is not a suable entity for purposes of a § 1983
action) (citing Marsden and Barber).
- 5 -
Plaintiff
also
names
the
Florida
Department
of
Financial
Services and Department of Health as defendants in this action (Doc.
1 at 4).
Plaintiff does not explain why these state agencies are
named as defendants and he does not identify any particular state
officer sued in his individual capacity. 1
Absent a legitimate
abrogation of immunity by Congress or a waiver of immunity by the
state being sued, the Eleventh Amendment is an absolute bar to suit
by an individual against a state or its agencies in federal court.
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S.
1 (1890).
the
Thus, the Florida Department of Financial Services and
Department
of
Health
must
be
dismissed
with
prejudice
as
defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii).
B.
Plaintiff does not state a claim against Defendant Corizon
Supervisors, employers, and private contractors cannot be sued
under § 1983 simply on a theory of respondeat superior. 2
See Kruger
v. Jenne, 164 F.Supp.2d 1330, 1333–34 (S.D. Fla. 2000) (citing Powell
v. Shopco Laurel, Co., 678 F.2d 504 (4th Cir. 1982)) (explaining
1
As opposed to suits in which the defendant is the state, one
of the state's agencies, or a responsible state officer sued in an
official capacity, the Eleventh Amendment provides no bar to federal
court adjudication of suits against state officers individually. See
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974).
2
Private contractors that run prisons do act under color of
state law for purposes of § 1983 liability.
Farrow v. West, 320
F.3d 1235, 1239 n. 3 (11th Cir. 2003). Nevertheless, as explained
herein, the principle that respondeat superior is not a cognizable
theory of liability under § 1983 holds true regardless of whether
the entity sued is a state, municipal, or private corporation. Harvey
v. Harvey, 949 F.2d 1127, 1129–30 (11th Cir. 1992).
- 6 -
that [supervisor] which provided medical care for state inmates could
not be sued under § 1983 on respondeat superior theory).
Here, Plaintiff only mentions Defendant Corizon in the caption
of his complaint.
connection”
Similarly, Plaintiff fails to allege a “causal
between
Defendant
constitutional violation.
Corizon
and
any
asserted
See Zatler c. Wainwright, 802 F.2d 397,
401 (11th Cir. 1986) (requiring an affirmative causal connection
between a defendant and an alleged constitutional violation).
The
“causal connection” can be established “when a history of widespread
abuse puts the responsible supervisor [or employer] on notice of the
need to correct the alleged deprivation, and he fails to do so[,]”
Brown v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 671 (11th Cir. 1990), or when “the
supervisor's
[or
employer's]
improper
‘custom
or
policy
.
.
.
result[s] in deliberate indifference to constitutional rights.’”
Hartley v. Parnell, 193 F.3d 1263, 1269 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting
Rivas v. Freeman, 940 F.2d 1491, 1495 (11th Cir. 1991)).
A causal
connection may also be shown when the facts support “an inference
that the supervisor [or employer] directed the subordinates to act
unlawfully or knew that the subordinates would act unlawfully and
failed to stop them from doing so.”
1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2003).
Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d
Plaintiff has not made the necessary
showing with respect to Defendant Corizon. Accordingly, Plaintiff's
claims against Defendant Corizon are dismissed without prejudice
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
- 7 -
C.
Plaintiff does not state a claim against the Sheriff of
Charlotte County
In the styling of his complaint, Petitioner parenthetically
includes the word “sheriff” next to Charlotte County Jail.
Even if
the Court construes the complaint as properly naming the Sheriff of
Charlotte
County
as
a
defendant,
this
defendant
must
still
be
dismissed. It is clear from the allegations in the complaint that
the
Sheriff
constitutional
did
not
directly
deprivation.
The
participate
Sheriff's
in
the
supervisory
alleged
position,
without more, does not subject him to liability. See discussion supra
Part III(B). Nor does Plaintiff's complaint contain any allegations
of a policy, custom or practice that was the “moving force” behind
the alleged misconduct so as to render the Sheriff liable in his
official capacity.
Accordingly,
Plaintiff's
claims
against
the
Sheriff
of
Charlotte County are dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
IV.
Conclusion
Plaintiff's claims against each defendant are dismissed because
he has not identified a defendant subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. §
1983.
Plaintiff will be allowed to file an amended complaint.
However, Plaintiff should amend his complaint only if the facts
support a conclusion that a particular defendant was directly and
personally involved in the deprivation of a constitutional right or
a policy, custom or practice was the moving force behind the alleged
- 8 -
misconduct .
Plaintiff's amended complaint will also be subject to
review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and will be dismissed if
Plaintiff fails to state claims upon which relief may be granted.
To amend his complaint, Plaintiff should completely fill out a
new civil rights complaint form, marking it Amended Complaint.
The
amended complaint must include the instant case number and all of
Plaintiff's claims he intends to assert; it should not refer back to
any earlier complaint.
Plaintiff is warned that the filing of an
amended complaint replaces all previous complaints, and claims that
are not re-alleged are deemed abandoned. See In re Wireless Telephone
Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litigation, 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir.
2005).
Plaintiff is reminded that, although he filed this action as a
pro se litigant, he is still required to plead a complaint that
complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. GJR Investments,
Inc. v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir.
1998)(holding that even in the case of pro se litigants, a court
does not have license to serve as de facto counsel for a party or to
re-write an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an
action), overruled on other grounds as recognized in Randall v.
Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 709 (11th Cir. 2010); Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d
835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989)(finding that a pro se litigant is subject
to a court's rules and to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).
- 9 -
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a
complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief. . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
The purpose of the rule is to give notice to the other party and not
to formulate issues or fully summarize the facts involved.
Clausen
& Sons, Inc. v. Theo. Hamm Brewing Co., 395 F.2d 388, 390 (8th Cir.
1968).
District courts, when confronted with a complaint that does
not comply with Rule 8(a), have been instructed by the Eleventh
Circuit
to
intervene
at
the
earliest
possible
moment
in
the
proceedings and require the plaintiff to re-plead his entire case.
Pelletier v. Zweifel, 921 F.2d 1465, 1522 (11th Cir. 1991),abrogated
on unrelated grounds by Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553
U.S. 639 (2008).
Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff wishes to
file an amended complaint, he should ensure that the complaint
complies with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
1.
All claims against the Charlotte County Jail, Florida
Department of Financial Services, and Florida Department of Health
are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
and (iii).
2.
All claims against Defendant Corizon and the Sheriff of
Charlotte County are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state
a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
- 10 -
3.
(14)
Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within FOURTEEN
DAYS
of
this
Order
and
in
compliance
with
the
Court’s
directions.
4.
If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within
fourteen days, the Court will issue a separate order directing the
Clerk of the Court to close this case and to enter judgment in favor
of Defendants.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this
December, 2015.
SA: OrlP-4
Copies: Christopher Dale Monroe
Encl: Section 1983 civil rights complaint form
- 11 -
3rd
day of
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?