RICKERSON v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA
Filing
6
ORDER striking 4 MOTION for Specific Performance filed by KENNETH E RICKERSON, striking 3 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by KENNETH E RICKERSON, denying 5 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by KENNETH E RICKERSON. The clerk is directed to mail 1983 complaint and IFP applicatoin ( Amended Pleadings due by 1/5/2012., Fee due by 1/5/2012., Motions due by 1/5/2012.). Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY R JONES on 12/5/11. (bkp)
Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
KENNETH E RICKERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO. 5:11-cv-279-MP-GRJ
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION
OF AMERICA,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1); Petition for Writ
of Mandamus (Doc. 3); Motion for Specific Performance (Doc. 4); and Motion to Appoint
Counsel (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff, a prisoner in a state correctional institution, filed a pro se
Complaint (Doc. 1), which was handwritten and not on the form for Civil Rights
Complaints by state prisoners. Plaintiff did not provide service copies nor did he pay
the filing fee or submit a motion to proceed as a pauper.
Plaintiff’s initial complaint alleges that the Corrections Corporation of America
(CCA) runs Graceville C.I. and has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by not
categorizing him as legally blind or providing him with assistive devices. As relief,
Plaintiff seeks a U.S. Attorney General Investigation into his claims. (Doc. 1). In his
“Petition for Writ of Mandamus” (Doc. 3), Plaintiff again asks the Court to compel the
U.S. Attorney General to investigate his ADA claims. In his “Motion for Specific
Performance,” Plaintiff once again asks the Court to compel an investigation into his
claims, seeks medical records, and seeks expenses for testing of his right eye. Plaintiff
Page 2 of 4
also requests that the investigation include the Florida Department of Corrections.
(Doc. 4.)
As a preliminary issue, Plaintiff’s “Petition for Writ of Mandamus” (Doc. 3) and
“Motion for Specific Performance” (Doc. 4) are essentially just amended versions of his
complaint, adding additional facts, an additional Defendant (the Department of
Corrections), and additional requests for relief. They suffer from similar deficiencies as
the first complaint in that they are not on the Court’s required form. Accordingly, Docs.
3 & 4 shall be stricken from the record.
The essence of Plaintiff’s claims are that the Corrections Corporation of America
and the Florida Department of Corrections violated Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). (Docs. 1, 3, 4.) Plaintiff challenges the determination that he is
not impaired–a determination that has affected his eligibility for certain services, such
as a cane, magnifier, talking books, and an assistant. Plaintiff also seeks additional
treatment with an optometrist.
Plaintiff will be afforded an opportunity to amend his complaint on the Court’s
forms. Plaintiff has asserted a claim for violation of the ADA. However, it is unclear
whether he wishes to assert Title II claims that also independently violate the
Constitution. Clarification of these issues is required by the Supreme Court’s decision
In United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006) (Title II abrogates state sovereign
immunity to the extent it “creates a private cause of action for damages against the
States for” unconstitutional conduct). In his amended complaint, Plaintiff shall clearly
specify: (1) the specific conduct, if any, he alleges violates the constitution and is
actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) to what extent the alleged conduct underlying
Case No: 5:11-cv-279-MP-GRJ
Page 3 of 4
the constitutional claims, if any, also violates Title II of the ADA; and (3) what specific
conduct, if any, violates Title II but not the Constitution. See Miller v. King, 449 F.3d
1149 (11th Cir. 2006) (remanding claim to district court for amendment of complaint in
conformity with the heightened pleading specifications of United States v. Georgia).
As to the Defendants in this case, Plaintiff initially named only Corrections
Corporation of America as a Defendant. In his “Motion for Specific Performance,”
Plaintiff names CCA and the Florida Department of Corrections as Defendants. (Doc.
4.) Plaintiff is advised that the Eleventh Circuit has held that GEO Care Croup, Inc., a
private prison management corporation operating a Florida state prison and, according
to Plaintiff, CCA’s predecessor at Graceville C.I., “is not a public entity subjecting it to
liability under Title II of the ADA and is, therefore, not a proper defendant” in an
inmate’s Title II claim. Edison v. Douberly, 604 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, CCA would not be a proper Defendant. If Plaintiff intends to raise claims
against individual persons, he must, as to each set of claims (Constitutional and ADA)
indicate whether the person is sued in their official or individual capacity.
As to the relief requested in this case, Plaintiff is advised that the ADA provides
for injunctive relief and/or money damages. See 42 U.S.C. § 12188.
Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel. (Doc. 5.) A plaintiff in a civil case has
no constitutional right to counsel. A court has broad discretion in appointing counsel for
an indigent plaintiff, Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 1999); but only exceptional
circumstances warrant appointment of counsel, such as where the legal issues are so
novel or complex as to require the assistance of a trained practitioner. Id. at 1320;
Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088 (11th Cir. 1990). The Court finds that the issues
Case No: 5:11-cv-279-MP-GRJ
Page 4 of 4
presented in the complaint are neither novel nor complex, and therefore appointment of
counsel is not warranted.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Docs. 3 & 4 are hereby STRICKEN from the record.
2. The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a blank prisoner civil rights complaint
form and instructions as well as an application for leave to proceed as a pauper
(prisoner form).
3. Plaintiff shall fully complete the complaint form using clearly legible type or
handwriting. In amending his Complaint, Plaintiff shall not refer back to his
original Complaint or incorporate any part of his original Complaint by reference.
Plaintiff shall file the amended complaint, titled as such, together with two
identical copies of the amended complaint, on or before January 5, 2012.
4. Plaintiff shall on or before January 5, 2012, either pay the $350.00 filing fee
or move for leave to proceed as a pauper.
5. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, Doc. 3, is DENIED.
6. Failure to comply with this order within the allotted time, or to show cause why
Plaintiff is unable to comply, will result in a recommendation to the district judge
that the case be dismissed without further notice for failure to prosecute and for
failure to obey an order of the court.
DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of December 2011.
s/Gary R. Jones
GARY R. JONES
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No: 5:11-cv-279-MP-GRJ
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?