Miller v. Gunderson et al

Filing 6

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: DISMISSING 1 Complaint filed by Quentin Miller for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Objections to R&R due by 8/10/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Graham on 7/23/2009. (csr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEDRGIA LLUJ9 JUL23 Pi N 11:55 BRUNSWICK DIVISION

QUENTIN MILLER, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV209-075 Dr. GUNDERSON, and the GLYNN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Defendants

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff, an inmate presently incarcerated at the Glynn County Detention Center in Brunswick, Georgia, has been permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A detainee proceeding in a civil action against officers or employees of government entities must comply with the mandates of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 & 1915A. In determining compliance, the court shall be guided by the longstanding principle that pro se pleadings are entitled to liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Walker v. Dupper, 860 F.2d 1010, 1011 (11th Cir. 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 court must dismiss the complaint or any portion of the complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and (2).

AO 72A (Rev. 8/82)

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)(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 whether 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. The court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim only where it appears beyond a doubt that a pro se litigant can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief. Hu g hes 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 identical language of § 1915A. Plaintiff contends that he is at risk of developing gangrene, lead poisoning, and shifting pellets as a result of being shot with birdshot from a shotgun in 2007. Plaintiff further contends that Defendant Dr. Gunderson, the resident doctor at the Glynn County Detention Center, has refused him medical treatment since May of 2007. Plaintiff asserts that he started showing common signs of lead poisoning in April of 2009. Plaintiff further asserts that he is in continuous pain and developed a green discoloration on his inner thighs. (Doc. No. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff names as a Defendant the Glynn County Detention Center. While local governments qualify as "persons" to whom § 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), a county detention center, as a mere arm of such governments, is not generally

AO 72A (Rev. 8/82)

II

2

considered a legal entity subject to suit. See Grech v. layton County , Ga., 335 F.3d 1326, 1343 (11th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot state a claim against the Glynn County Detention Center, as the Glynn County Detention Center is merely a vehicle through which the county governs and is not a proper party defendant. Shelby v. City of Atlanta, 578 F. Supp. 1368, 1370 (N.D. Ga. 1984). Plaintiff's cognizable claims are addressed in an Order of even date. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, it is my RECOMMENDATION that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Glynn County Detention Center be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED, this

2?

y of July, 2009.

UV1ES E. GRAHAM NITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

AC) 72A (Rev. 8/82)

3