Williams v. Lake County Board of Commissioners et al

Filing 9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL dismissing petitioner's claims against SSA as frivolous and for failure to state a claim; dismissing claims against the Florida DOC and the Lake County Commissioners for failure to state a claim. Finding no defendants or claims remaining, the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 8/23/2013. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
DONALD O. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No:

5:13-cv-351-Oc-29PRL

LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, a pre-trial detainee currently incarcerated at the
Lake County Detention Center in Tavares, Florida, initiated this
action by filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983

(Doc. 1, filed July 22, 2013).

Plaintiff has also filed a

motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2).

Plaintiff alleges

that his constitutional rights to due process have been violated
by the Social Security Administration, the Florida Department of
Corrections,

and

the

Lake

County

Florida

County

Commissioners

(Doc. 1 at 7).
When an application is filed to proceed in forma pauperis,
the Court must review the file pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
For the reasons set forth in this Order, Plaintiff's Complaint is
DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

I.

Complaint

The

facts

underlying

Plaintiff's

claims

are

alleged

as

follows:
In January of 2001, Plaintiff was diagnosed as a bi-polar
manic with psychotic features (Doc. 1 at 7).

“Several months

later, numerous psychiatrists employed by the Florida Department
of Corrections confirmed the diagnosis.” Id. In 2008, after his
release from prison, Plaintiff filed applications for disability
benefits

with

the

Veterans

Affairs

and

the

Social

Security

Administration. Id. His applications were denied. Id. Plaintiff
appealed the denial of Social Security disability benefits, but
his appeal was also denied. Id.
On April 9, 2010, Plaintiff was arrested for his failure to
pay cab fare and was booked into the Lake County Detention Center
where he sought psychiatric treatment (Doc. 1 at 7).

He was

denied bi-polar medication and was “rushed out the door at the
Lake County Detention Center” on June 4, 2010 with no means of
support and no means to acquire medication. Id.

He explained his

situation to his probation officer, but was not offered treatment.
Id. Ten days later, an eighty-one year old woman “died in his
presence

from

unknown

causes.”

Id.

As

a

result

of

her

death,

Plaintiff is charged with first degree capital murder, kidnaping
and

robbery.

psychologists

Id.
have

Presently,

concluded

that
2

several

psychiatrists

Plaintiff

suffers

from

and
post-

traumatic

stress

disorder,

bi-polar

I

with

psychotic

features,

seizure disorders, and other mental illnesses. Id.
Plaintiff

seeks

Administration

for

relief

denying

from

his

the

Social

application

for

Security
disability

benefits; from the Florida Department of Corrections for refusing
to assist him with his mental illness; and from the Lake County
Board of County Commissioners for failing to treat his mental
illness

from

April

9,

2010

until

June

4,

2010

while

he

was

incarcerated at the Lake County Detention Center (Doc. 1 at 8).
Plaintiff does not identify the nature of relief he seeks
from any defendant other than stating that he wants a trial.
II.
A

Legal Standards

federal

complaint

district

filed

in

court

forma

is

required

pauperis

and

to

to

review

dismiss

a

civil

any

such

complaint that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The mandatory
language of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 applies to all proceedings in forma
pauperis. Section 1915 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;

3

(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).
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
clearly

from
does

suit
not

or

the

exist.

claim
Id.

seeks
at

to

327.

enforce
In

a

making

right

that

the

above

determinations, all factual allegations in the complaint must be
viewed as true. Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 47 (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).
III. Analysis
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that:
(1) a violation of a specific constitutional right or federal
statutory provision; (2) was committed by a person acting under
color of state law. Doe v. Sch. Bd. of Broward County, Fla., 604
F.3d 1248, 1265 (11th Cir. 2010).

Construing Plaintiff's claims

in a liberal fashion, the Court determines that he seeks damages

4

from the defendants for deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs (Doc. 1 at 7-8).
The

Eighth

Amendment

prohibits

indifference

to

a

serious

medical need so deliberate that it constitutes “the unnecessary
and wanton infliction of pain[.]” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
104 (1976). To demonstrate deliberate indifference, a plaintiff
must

show

both

defendant's

an

objectively

subjective

serious

knowledge

of,

medical

and

more

need
than

and

the

negligent

disregard of, that need. Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1245 (11th
Cir. 2003).
Mere

claims

practitioner

do

of
not

negligence
rise

to

or

the

inattention

level

of

an

by

a

Eighth

medical
Amendment

violation which is actionable under § 1983. Estelle, 429 U.S. at
106

(medical

malpractice

does

not

become

a

constitutional

violation merely because the victim is a prisoner); Mandel v. Doe,
888

F.2d

783,

wantonness,
characterize
Punishments

787–88

not
the

(11th

Cir.

inadvertence
conduct

Clause[.]”

or

1989).
error

prohibited

Whitley

v.

by

“It

is

obduracy

and
that

in

good

faith,

the

Cruel

and

Albers,

475

U.S.

Unusual

312,

319

(1986). In addition, a mere simple difference in medical opinion
between

the

prison's

medical

staff

and

the

inmate

as

to

his

diagnosis or course of treatment does not support a claim of cruel
and unusual punishment. Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1505
(11th Cir. 1991).
5

a.

Plaintiff has not stated a claim against the Social
Security Administration

Given that Plaintiff files this motion as a pro se litigant,
the Court will liberally construe his claim against the Social
Security Administration as an attempt to state a cause of action
under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (permitting suits against federal
officers for monetary damages alleged to have violated a citizen’s
constitutional
definitively

rights).

disallowed

However,
Bivens

the

actions

in

Supreme
the

Court

Social

has

Security

context, stating that “[t]he [Social Security] Act . . . makes no
provision
responsible

for
for

remedies

in

money

unconstitutional

damages
conduct

against
that

officials

leads

to

the

wrongful denial of benefits.” Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412,
424-25 (1988).
Likewise, even if construed as a 42. U.S.C. § 1983 claim, the
Social

Security

Administration’s

review

of

Plaintiff's

alleged

mental disability is an operation of federal law and does not
involve any actions under the color of state law.

Moreover, even

were the Social Security Administration somehow acting under the
color of state law, the United States cannot be sued without its
consent, and a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over such claims absent an express waiver of sovereign immunity.
F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994) (“Absent a waiver,
sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies
6

from suit.”).

Thus, to the extent Plaintiff intended to state a §

1983 claim against the Social Security Administration, the claim
must fail.
Because

Plaintiff

cannot

obtain

relief

against

the

Social

Security Administration as a matter of law, all claims against
this defendant are dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
b.

Plaintiff does not state a claim
Florida Department of Corrections

Plaintiff's

complaint

is

unclear

as

to

against the Florida Department of Corrections.
of

Claims,

Plaintiff’s

asserts

that

“[t]he

against

his

the

allegations

In his Statement
State

of

Florida

Department of Corrections refused to assist Plaintiff when his
disabilities were apparent and he pleaded for help.

DOC did not

treat Plaintiff as they were required or how they had treated
other [indecipherable] in similar circumstances.” (Doc. 1 at 8).
The facts as alleged by Plaintiff do not support his contention
that he was refused mental health treatment by this defendant.
Plaintiff

states

that

in

2001,

he

was

evaluated

by

“numerous” psychiatrists at the Florida Department of Corrections
(Doc.

1

custody

at
of

7).
the

Plaintiff
Florida

further

Department

alleges
of

that

while

Corrections,

in
he

the
was

prescribed “two antipsychotic mind-altering psychiatric medication
regimes and intense counseling that began in January of 2001.” Id.
No other allegations are made against this defendant.
7

To the

extent Plaintiff now argues that the treatment he received from
2001 until his release was inadequate or defective, such a claim
is

barred

by

the

four-year

statute

of

limitations

for

§

1983

claims.1
Plaintiff turned over his complaint for mailing on July 17,
2013.

Accordingly, any claim founded on actions that occurred

before July 17, 2009 is barred by the statute of limitations.
Plaintiff states that he was released from the custody of the
Florida Department of Corrections on August 1, 2008 (Doc. 1 at 7).
Plaintiff's claims concerning the quality of his mental health
treatment while in prison are time barred.
In
Plaintiff

addition,
has

not

even

if

alleged

this
that

claim
the

were

not

Florida

time

barred,

Department

of

Corrections demonstrated deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs so as to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment’s
Cruel and Unusual Clause. To the contrary, Plaintiff alleges that
he received psychiatric drugs and “intense counseling” while in

1

Although 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not have a statute of
limitations provision, the courts look to the limitation period
prescribed by the state in which the litigation arose. In all §
1983 actions, the state limitations statute governing personal
injury claims should be applied. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S.
261, 276-79 (1985). The applicable statute of limitations in a §
1983 lawsuit brought in Florida is the four-year limitations
period for personal injury claims. See Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)
(providing a four year limitations period for suits founded on
personal injuries); Chappell v. Rich, 340 F.3d 1279, 1283 (11th
Cir. 2003) (recognizing that, in a case brought in the forum state
of Florida, the statute of limitations is four years).
8

the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections. Plaintiff
raises, at most, a disagreement with his course of treatment or a
claim

for

medical

malpractice.

Allegations

of

negligence

or

medical malpractice do not rise to a constitutional violation.
Estelle, 429 U.S. at 97.
Plaintiff's

claims

against

the

Florida

Department

of

Corrections are dismissed for failure to state a claim on which
relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
c.

Plaintiff has not stated a claim against the Lake
County Florida County Commissioners

Plaintiff

states

that

the

“Lake

County

Florida

County

Commissioners in charge of the Sheriff’s Office and its Jail were
responsible for treating Plaintiff on April 9, 2010 [through] June
4, 2010, but refused despite his pleadings.” (Doc. 1 at 8).
Plaintiff's claim fails as a matter of law because a claim
for deliberate indifference brought against a state actor in his
official

capacity

which

is

premised

solely

on

a

theory

of

vicarious liability does not exist under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Cook ex
rel. Estate of Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe County, Fla., 402 F.3d
1092,

1115-16

(11th

Cir.

2005)(

(“[T]o

succeed

on

her

§

1983

claim, [the plaintiff] must establish that the Sheriff himself, as
representative of Monroe County, was deliberately indifferent to
the

possibility

respondeat

of

superior

[the
nor

decedent's]
vicarious

suicide,

liability

since

exists

neither
under

§

1983.”)(citing Belcher v. City of Foley, Ala., 30 F.3d 1390, 1396
9

(11th Cir. 1994)).

Thus, only when a policy or custom of the

municipality inflicts the injury does § 1983 liability exist. City
of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989).
Plaintiff does not allege that the Lake County Commissioners
were

personally

aware

of

Plaintiff's

treatment and ignored that need.

need

for

mental

health

Nor has Plaintiff alleged any

custom or policy of inadequate training, supervision, or staffing
of

the

jail

deliberately

such

that

indifferent

the
to

Lake

County

Plaintiff's

Commissioners

serious

medical

were
needs.

Rather, Plaintiff merely asserts that he was “rushed out the door
at the L.C.D.C. with no means of support or means to acquire
medications.” (Doc. 1 at 7).
Even if this Court assumes that Lake County policy allowed
prisoners to be released from custody without “support or means to
acquire medications”, such a policy does not necessarily rise to
the level of deliberate indifference.
identified

the

harm

he

allegedly

Although Plaintiff has not

suffered

as

a

result

of

his

release from the Lake County Detention Center without receiving
the mental health treatment he requested, the Court will liberally
construe

the

Complaint

as

asserting

that

Plaintiff

suffered

serious harm because he was arrested for first degree murder after
his release. Even assuming that Plaintiff's arrest is objectively
serious

harm,

he

has

not

alleged

that

the

Lake

County

Commissioners had a subjective knowledge of the risk of serious
10

harm.

Farmer

official’s

v.

Brennan,

‘deliberate

511

U.S.

825,

indifference’

828

to

a

(1994)

(“A

substantial

prison

risk

of

serious harm to an inmate violates the Eighth Amendment.”). To
wit, Plaintiff has not alleged facts to show that this defendant
had

knowledge

of

a

strong

likelihood,

rather

than

a

mere

possibility, that Plaintiff would harm someone or get re-arrested
if released. See Edwards v. Gilbert, 867 F.2d 1271, 1276 (11th
Cir. 1989) (“The deliberate indifference standard is met only if
there were a ‘strong likelihood, rather than a mere possibility,’
that self-infliction of harm would result.”) (quoting State Bank
of

St.

Charles

1983)(discussing

v.
a

Camic,
prison

712

F.2d

suicide

1140,

case).

1146

(7th

Moreover,

Cir.

because

respondeat superior liability does not attach under § 1983, the
defendants must have personally had this knowledge.
Because Plaintiff has failed to allege that his arrest was
foreseeable to the Lake County Commissioners, he has not stated a
claim

on

which

Plaintiff's

relief

claims

may

against

be

granted

the

Lake

as

County

to

this

defendant.

Commissioners

are

dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
IV.

Conclusion

In sum, the Court ORDERS as follows:

11

1.

Plaintiff's

claims

against

the

Social

Security

Administration are DISMISSED as frivolous and for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted.
2.

Plaintiff's

claims

against

the

Florida

Department

of

Corrections and the Lake County Commissioners are DISMISSED for
failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
3.

With no remaining claims or defendants, this case is

DISMISSED.
pending

The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all

motions,

to

close

this

case,

and

to

enter

judgment

accordingly.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this
of August, 2013.

SA: OrlP-4 8/21
Copies furnished to: Donald O. Williams

12

23rd

day