Eady v. Dodge County Jail et al
ORDER re Plaintiff to Amend 1 Complaint filed by Andy Eady within 14 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 12/04/2017. (jlh) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/4/2017: # 1 Prisoner Complaint) (jlh).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DODGE COUNTY JAIL and INMATE
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at the Dodge County Jail (“DCJ”) in Eastman, 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).
SCREENING OF THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff names the DCJ and Inmate Medical Service as Defendants. Taking all of
Plaintiff’s allegations as true, as the Court must for purposes of the present screening, the facts
are as follows.
Plaintiff has been incarcerated at DCJ for fourteen months. (Doc. no. 1, p. 5.) During
that time, he has had a large red spot on his neck and been coughing up blood. (Id.) Defendants
refuse to treat Plaintiff for his ailments. (Id.)
Leave to Amend Complaint
Here, Plaintiff alleges deliberate indifference claims against DCJ and Inmate Medical
Service. However, DCJ 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-CV1966, 2009 WL 2496655, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 12, 2009) (“Jails . . . are not legal entities
subject to suit under § 1983 at all.”). Moreover, it is unclear from Plaintiff’s complaint
whether Inmate Medical Service is a private medical entity or whether it is a subdivision of
DCJ. The only appropriate parties under § 1983 are 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 quasiartificial 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
The Court is hesitant to dismiss Plaintiff’s potentially plausible deliberate indifference
claims on such a technicality. The Court therefore will give Plaintiff an opportunity to amend
his complaint and name defendants capable of being sued, presumably the jail and medical
officials allegedly responsible for the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Plaintiff
should also include as much information as possible about his alleged medical diagnoses,
symptoms, and treatment sought. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to amend his
complaint within fourteen days of the date of this Order.1 Plaintiff must use the standard form
provided along with this Order, with no more than six handwritten pages attached. See
Goodison v. Washington Mut. Bank, 232 F. App’x 922, 923 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming
dismissal of case where plaintiff failed to heed pleading instructions from court to re-draft
complaint to make more concise); see also London v. Georgia Dep’t of Corr., CV 502-107,
doc. no. 10 (M.D. Ga. May 10, 2002) (directing amended complaint shall not exceed six
If Plaintiff wishes to pursue this case, he MUST file an amended
complaint, which MUST be filed in accordance with the following instructions.
The amended complaint must be printed legibly so that the Court may discern
Plaintiff’s claims, and it will supersede and replace in its entirety the previous pleadings filed
by Plaintiff. Krinsk v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., 654 F.3d 1194, 1202 (11th Cir. 2011); Lowery
v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1219 (11th Cir. 2007) (“an amended complaint supersedes
the initial complaint and becomes the operative pleading in the case”). It must contain a
caption that clearly identifies, by name, each individual that Plaintiff is suing in the present
lawsuit. Furthermore, the body of Plaintiff’s amended complaint must contain sequentially
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
numbered paragraphs containing only one act of misconduct per paragraph. The numbered
paragraphs in his amended complaint should include information such as: (i) the alleged act of
misconduct; (ii) the date on which such misconduct occurred; (iii) the names of each and every
individual who participated in such misconduct; and (iv) where appropriate, the location where
the alleged misconduct occurred.
While Plaintiff may attach exhibits to his amended
complaint, he shall not incorporate them by reference as a means of providing the factual basis
for his complaint. For example, Plaintiff should not simply state, “See attached documents.”
Thus, Plaintiff must name the individuals whom he seeks to include as defendants herein in
both the caption and the body of his amended complaint; he may not rely on the fact that
individuals are named in the exhibits attached to his amended complaint as a means of
including such persons as defendants to this lawsuit. The Court will not independently
examine exhibits that Plaintiff does not specifically reference (by the exhibit’s page number) in
his amended complaint.
Plaintiff is further cautioned that no portion of any prior complaint shall be
incorporated into his amended complaint by reference. Moreover, Plaintiff shall submit only
one amended complaint in accordance with the terms of this Order. Therefore, Plaintiff shall
state in the single amended complaint filed in accordance with the terms of this Order all
claims that he wishes the Court to consider as a basis for awarding the relief sought. Once
Plaintiff has complied with the conditions of this Order, the Court will review the amended
complaint to determine which, if any, claims are viable and which, if any, defendants should be
served with a copy of the amended complaint. If no response is timely received from Plaintiff,
the Court will presume that he desires to have this case voluntarily dismissed and will
recommend dismissal of this action, without prejudice. Plaintiff is cautioned that while this
action is pending, he shall immediately inform this Court of any change of address. Failure to
do so will result in dismissal of this case.
SO ORDERED this 4th day of December, 2017, at Augusta, Georgia.
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?