Stabb v. Osceola County Sheriff's Office

Filing 2

ORDER. Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. If Plaintiff wishes to bring his claim against a proper defendant, he must file a new complaint with a new c ase number. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail with Plaintiff's copy of this Order a court-approved form for filing a civil rights complaint, to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, and to close this case. Signed by Judge Julie S. Sneed on 3/10/2025. (JWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
THOMAS H. STABB, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:25-cv-367-JSS-UAM

OSCEOLA COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this action against the Osceola
County Sheriff’s Office. (Dkt. 1.) For the reasons outlined below, the court dismisses
the complaint for failure to state a claim.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this case against the Osceola County Sheriff’s Office by filing
a complaint on the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint form. (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that
from January 7, 2024, through March 14, 2024, he “was calling to register as level 1
sex offender with no call back or any information to go about registering.” (Id. at 5.)
He claims that this caused “stress, emotional [and] mental anguish[,] and loss of
wages,” and seeks “$600 million for all damages.” (Id.)

APPLICABLE STANDARDS
The court must “review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon
as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Upon review, the court must “dismiss the complaint, or any
portion of the complaint, if” it is “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted,” or if it “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Although courts “give liberal
construction” to documents filed by pro se plaintiffs, Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826,
829 (11th Cir. 2007), pro se plaintiffs are still “required . . . to conform to procedural
rules,” Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002). See Cummings v. Dep’t of
Corr., 757 F.3d 1228, 1234 n.10 (11th Cir. 2014) (“The right of self-representation does
not exempt a party from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive
law.” (quoting Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. 1981))).
“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “To
state a claim under section 1983, [a complaint] must allege that an act or omission,
committed by a person acting under color of state law, deprived [the plaintiff] of a

-2-

right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or a federal statute.” A.W. v.
Coweta Cnty. Sch. Dist., 110 F.4th 1309, 1315 (11th Cir. 2024).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has sued the Osceola County Sheriff’s Office. (See Dkt. 1.) However,
the Osceola County Sherriff’s Office is not a legal entity subject to suit under Florida
law. See Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992) (“Sheriff’s departments
and police departments are not usually considered legal entities subject to suit, but
capacity to sue or be sued shall be determined by the law of the state in which the
district court is held.” (quotation omitted)); Fla. City Police Dep’t v. Corcoran, 661 So. 2d
409, 410 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995) (“Where a police department is an integral part of
the city government as the vehicle through which the city government fulfills its
policing functions, it is not an entity subject to suit.” (quotation omitted)).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim against the Osceola County Sherriff’s Office must be
dismissed. See Faulkner v. Monroe Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 523 F. App’x 696, 701 (11th Cir.
2013) (“Florida law has not established Sheriff’s offices as separate legal entities with
the capacity to be sued. Thus, the district court did not err by dismissing Faulkner’s
claim against [the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office] because [it] is not a legal entity
with the capacity to be sued under Florida law.”)

CONCLUSION
Accordingly:
1. Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28

-3-

U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. If Plaintiff wishes to bring his claim
against a proper defendant, he must file a new complaint with a new case
number.
2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail with Plaintiff’s copy of this Order a courtapproved form for filing a civil rights complaint, to terminate any pending
motions and deadlines, and to close this case.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on March 10, 2025.

Copies furnished to:
Unrepresented Party

-4-