Allen v. Southeast Georgia Health System et al

Filing 11

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: Dismissing 1 Complaint filed by Dwight L. Allen for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Objections to R&R due by 2/27/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Graham on 2/9/2009. (csr)

F1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGI BRUNSWICK DIVISION 209 FE

0 v.

so ULL. DWIGHT L. ALLEN, Plaintiff,
V.

CIVIL ACTI

NO.: CV208-146

SOUTHEAST GEORGIA HEALTH SYSTEM; CAMDEN HEALTH CENTER; JANE DOE, M.D.; CAMDEN COUNTY; PRESTON RHOVES; KATHRIN ZELL; STEPHEN BERRY; CHARLENE SEARS; DAVID RAINER; STEPHEN KELLY, District Attorney; DIANNE DODDS, Assistant District Attorney; HARRIET SIRMON, Detective; CITY OF ST. MARYS; ROWLAND ESKRIDGE, Mayor; JERRY LOCKHART; L. J. WILLIAMS; GARY BLOUNT; BILL DELOUGHY; LARRY JOHNSON; EULL WEAVER, City Council; JOHN DOE, City Manager; Officer K. JEFFERIES; Officer MURRAY, and TIMOTHY HATCH, Chief of Police, Defendants.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S R

T AND REC

I IY'i I

Plaintiff, who is currently confined at the Glynn County Petention Center in Brunswick, Georgia, filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A detainee proceeding in a civil action against officers or employees of goveriiment entities must comply with the mandates of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1915 & 1915A. In determining compliance, the court shall be guided by the longstanding

AO 72A (Rev. 8i82)

principle that pro se pleadings are entitled to liberal construction

v. Kerner, 404

U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Walker v. Dugger, 860 F.2d 1010, 1011 (11th (,ir. 1988). 28 U.S.C. § 1915A requires a district court to screen the complaint for cognizable claims before or as soon as possible after docketing. The courtt must dismiss the complaint or any portion of the complaint that is frivolous, nialicicus, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary dam from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and (2). In Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997), the Eleventh Circuit interpreted the language contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)i ii), which is nearly identical to that contained in the screening provisions at § 191 5A(b). As the language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) closely tracks the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court held that the same standards for determining wh er to dismiss for

failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) should be applied to prisoner complaints filed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Mitchell, 112 F.3d at 1490. Court may dismiss

a complaint for failure to state a claim only where it appears a doubt that a pro se litigant can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 10(1980); Mitchell, 112 F.3d at 1490. While the court in Mitchell interpreted § 1915(e), its interpretation guides this Court in applying the ider ical language of § 1915A. Plaintiff asserts he was arrested by the Nassau County, Florida, Sheriffs Department on behalf of the Camden County Sheriff's Depa the arrest warrant was not signed until the day after he was Plaintiff contends Plaintiff contends iment, aggravated

he was charged with rape, aggravated sodomy, false imp

AO 72A (Rev. 8/82)

stalking, and burglary. Plaintiff contends detectives and the Di knew the charges against him should have been dismissed.

Attorney's Office

Stephen Kelly and Dianna Dodds with the District Attorney's Office were named as Defendants. Prosecutors are immune from liability u the doctrine of office. Imbler v. suits is derived

prosecutorial immunity for actions taken within the scope of

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976). Prosecutorial immunity in § I

from judicial immunity. Id. at 427. Policies supporting prosecutoril immunity include concerns "that harassment by unfounded litigation would cause deflection of the

prosecutor's energies from his public duties and the possibility that would shade his decisions instead of exercising the independence of judgment recuired by his public trust." Id. As Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants Kelly and Dodds acted outside the scope of their positions, Plaintiff cannot maintain a claim against these Defendants. Plaintiff names Harriet Sirmon, the lead investigator, as a Defendant. Plaintiff names Officer K. Jefferies, Officer Murray, and Chief of Police Htch as Defendants. Plaintiff also names Camden County as a Defendant. However, Plaintiff makes no factual allegations in his Complaint against these Defendants. A pintiff must set forth "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief." FED. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). As Plaintiff has failed to make any factual allegations against Defendants Sirmon, Jefferies, Murray, Hatch, and Camden County his claims against them should be dismissed. Plaintiff names Preston Rhoves, Kathrin Zell, Stephen Charlene Sears, ndants. Plaintiff

and David Rainer, who are Camden County Commissioners, as

also names Jerry Lockhart, L.J. Williams, Gary Blount, Bill Delouhy, Larry Johnson,

AO 72A (Rev. 8/82)

3

and Eull Weaver, city council members; John Doe, the City Manger; and Rowland Eskridge, the mayor, as Defendants. While local governments qulify as 'persons" to whom section 1983 applies, Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 663 (1978); Parker v. Williams, 862 F.2d 1471, 1477 (11th Cir. 1989), county commissions and city councils, as mere arms of such governments, are not generally considered legal entities subject to suit. See Grech v. Cla yton County , Ga., 335 F.3d 136, 1343 (11th Cir. 2003). However, a county commission or city council can be h policy" causes a constitutional violation. j.ēL at 1329. Plaintiff liable if its "official set forth no facts

which indicate Defendants Rhoves, Zell, Berry, Sears, Rainer, Williams, Blount, Deloughy, Johnson, Weaver, Doe, or Eskridge had a policy it place which led to any alleged violations of his constitutional rights. Finally, Plaintiff names Southeast Georgia Health Systeri, Camden Health Center, and Jane Doe, M.D., as Defendants. According to Plaintiff, Defendant Jane Doe examined the alleged rape victim, and the examination ed no evidence of

rape. "In order to prevail on a civil rights action under § 1983, a p1 must show that he or she was deprived of a federal right by a person acting unde color of state law." Griffin v. City of Ora-Locka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir. 2001). "[S]tate action requires both an alleged constitutional deprivation 'caused by the exorcise of some right or privilege created by the State or by the rule of conduct imposed by the State or by a person for whom the State is responsible,' and that 'the charged with the

deprivation must be a person who may fairly be said to be a actor." Patrick v. Flo yd Med. Ctr., 201 F.3d 1313, 1315 (11th Cir. 2000) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has not shown that Defendants Southeast Georgia Health System,

AO 72A (Rev. 8/82)

4

Camden Health Center, and Jane Doe were state actors at any tin ie giving rise to his claims. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, it is my RECOMMENDATION that plaintiff's Complaint be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED, this

Q y of February, 2009.

S E. GRAHAM ED STATES MAGISTI .TEJUDGE

AO 72A (Rev. 8/82)

II

II

5