Abbott v. Charles B. Webster Detention Center

Filing 8

ORDER allowing Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint. Amended complaint due 12/26/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 12/05/2016. (pts)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
DIJON CORTEZ ABBOTT,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CHARLES B. WEBSTER DETENTION
)
CENTER,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_________

CV 116-167

ORDER
_________
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at the Charles B. Webster Detention Center (“Webster
DC”) in Augusta, Georgia, commenced the above-captioned case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”), Plaintiff’s complaint must be screened to
protect potential defendants. Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 785 (11th Cir. 1984); Al-Amin
v. Donald, 165 F. App’x 733, 736 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
I.

SCREENING OF THE COMPLAINT
A.

Background

Plaintiff names Webster DC as the sole Defendant in his complaint. Taking all of
Plaintiff’s allegations as true, as the Court must for purposes of the present screening, the facts
are as follows.
On July 18, 2016, Plaintiff received a letter from Lisa M. Holland of Superior Court
Judge J. David Roper’s office. (Doc. no. 1, p. 5.) Upon receipt, Plaintiff found the envelope pre-

opened and a response request referenced in the letter missing. (Id.) Plaintiff also received a
letter from the Supreme Court of Georgia on August 16, 2016 and a letter from the Southern
Center for Human Rights on September 2, 2016 that were opened and retaped before being
delivered to Plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff contends these actions violated his legal mail rights. (Id.)
B.

Leave to Amend Complaint.

Here, Plaintiff only alleges legal mail claims against Webster DC. However, Webster
DC is not a proper party because county jails are not subject to liability under § 1983. See, e.g.,
Smith v. Chatham Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. CV 412-224, 2012 WL 5463898, at *2, (S.D.
Ga. Oct. 22, 2012) (“[T]he [county jail] is not a legal entity capable of being sued”); Bolden
v. Gwinnett Cnty. Det. Ctr. Med. Admin. Med. Doctors, No. 1:09-CV-1966, 2009 WL
2496655, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 12, 2009) (“Jails . . . are not legal entities subject to suit under
§ 1983 at all.”).

Appropriate parties for suit under § 1983 include only persons who

participated in the alleged violation. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (subjecting only “persons” to
liability); see also Georgia Insurers Insolvency Pool v. Elbert County, 368 S.E.2d 500, 502
(1988) (limiting § 1983 liability to “(1) natural persons; (2) an artificial person (a
corporation); and (3) such quasi-artificial persons as the law recognizes as being capable to
sue”) (quotations omitted). Thus, Plaintiff’s claims are ripe for dismissal for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
The Court is hesitant to dismiss Plaintiff’s potentially plausible legal mail claims on
such a technicality. The Court therefore will give Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his
complaint and name defendants capable of being sued. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS

2

Plaintiff to amend his complaint within twenty-one days of the date of this Order.1 Should
Plaintiff fail to do so, the Court will recommend dismissal of his case.
SO ORDERED this 5th day of December, 2016, at Augusta, Georgia.

1

The Court DIRECTS the CLERK to attach a standard form complaint used by pro se
litigants in the Southern District of Georgia to Plaintiff’s copy of this Order, stamped with this
case number.
3