Johnson v. Chatham County Detention Center

Filing 3

ORDERED that the Court directs Johnson, within fourteen days of the date this Order is served, to show cause why his case should not be dismissed for violating Rule4(m). Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 10/7/2015. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
ANTONIO FRANKLIN JOHNSON,)
)

Plaintiff,
)

)

V.

Case No. CV415-137

)

CHATHAM COUNTY
DETENTION CENTER,

)
)
)

Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case on May 13, 2015 (doc. 1)
and paid the Court's $400 filing fee on May 29, 2015. However, he
sought no summons for Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 service. Nor has he served any
defendant within the 120 days that Rule 4(m) demands.' The Court thus
directs him, within 14 days of the date this Order is served, to show why
his case should not be dismissed for violating Rule 4(m).
Note, for that matter, that plaintiff has named as his defendant the
Chatham County Detention Center, which is an entity incapable of being
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(A), the first day (May 29, 2015) is excluded from the
120-day period, which placed Johnson at Sunday, September 27, 2015, as his Rule
4(m) deadline. But since Rule 6(a)(1(C) says to exclude Sunday as an "end day," he
had until Monday, September 28, 2015, to serve the defendant.

sued. Logue, Jr. v. Chatham Cnty. Detention Ctr., 2010 WL 5769485, at
*3 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 29, 2010); see also Walton v. Garland Cnty. Detention
Ctr., 2015 WL 1401728 at * 2 (W.D. Ark. Mar. 26, 2015) ("The jail is a
building and not a person or a legal entity subject to suit under § 1983.");
Jones v. Vista Detention Facility, 2015 WL 2152654 at * 3 (S.D. Cal. May
7 ) 2015) (same); cf., Lovelace v. DeKaib Cent. Prob., 144 F. App'x 793, 795
(11th Cir. 2005) (county police department not a legal entity subject to
suit under § 1983); Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992)
(dismissing claim against sheriffs department because department was
not subject to suit under Alabama law).
And even though Johnson has paid the filing fee, dismissal is
appropriate. Cuyler v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 2012 WL 10488184 at *
2 (11th Cir. Dec. 3, 2012) (notwithstanding filing fee payment, "a
district court has the inherent authority to dismiss a patently frivolous
complaint"); Jefferson Fourteenth Assocs. v. Woitco de P.R., Inc., 695
F.2d 524, 526 (11th Cir. 1983) (district courts have inherent power to
dismiss sua sponte frivolous suits without giving notice to the parties);
Machulas v. Lanier, 2013 WL 6795597 at * 1 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 19, 2013)
("Although plaintiff has paid the filing fee and thus is not proceeding

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a paid complaint that is obviously frivolous does
not confer subject matter jurisdiction, and may be dismissed sua sponte
before service of process.") (quotes, cites and alterations omitted);

Basilio v. Nassau Cnty., 2013 WL 6145783 * 3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2013)
(same). Plaintiff therefore shall show the court why his case should not
be dismissed on these grounds, too.
SO ORDERED, this

day of October, 2015.

UN! ED STAES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3