Opinion
3:21cv3120/LAC/EMT
04-20-2022
CHARLES ALLEN FARMER JR., [1] Plaintiff, v. ESCAMBIA COUNTY JAIL, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff Charles Allen Farmer, Jr. (Farmer), an inmate of the Escambia County Jail (Jail) when he commenced this case, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1). Farmer has since been transferred to the Florida Department of Corrections (see ECF Nos. 7, 9, 10). Presently before the court is Farmer's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9).
The case was referred to the undersigned for the issuance of all preliminary orders and any recommendations to the district court regarding dispositive matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(C); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Upon screening of the Amended Complaint, it is the opinion of the undersigned that this case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1).
I. BACKGROUND
Farmer names the Escambia County Jail (Jail) as the sole Defendant (ECF No. 9 at 1, 2). Farmer complains about various conditions of his confinement at both the “old Jail” and “new Jail” (see ECF No. 9 at 5-6; see also ECF No. 10 at 3-4).Farmer asserts claims under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments and seeks monetary damages in the amount of $2,000,000 for the alleged constitutional violations (see ECF No. 9 at 7; ECF No. 10 at 5).
The court cites to the page numbers automatically assigned by the court's electronic filing system.
II. STATUTORY SCREENING STANDARD
Because Farmer is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, the court must dismiss this case if the court determines it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b). The statutory language “tracks the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), ” and thus dismissals for failure to state a claim are governed by the same standard as Rule 12(b)(6). Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997). The allegations of the complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 120 F.3d 1390, 1393 (11th Cir. 1997).
To survive dismissal at the screening phase, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The plausibility standard is met only where the facts alleged enable “the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Plausibility means “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The determination of whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citation omitted). The court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Id. at 678 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). And “bare assertions” that “amount to nothing more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements” of a claim “are conclusory and not entitled to be assumed true.” Id. at 681 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Stated succinctly,
[p]leadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.Id. at 679.
III. DISCUSSION
As previously noted, Farmer names the Escambia County Jail as the sole Defendant in this case. The capacity to be sued in federal court is governed by the law of the state in which the district court is located. See Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(b)). Under Florida law, there are constitutionally created political subdivisions called counties and separately created constitutional officers. See Fla. Const. Art. VIII, §§ 1(a) and (d). Florida does not provide, either constitutionally or statutorily, for a county jail facility as a separate legal entity, an agency of the county, or a corporate entity. Therefore, a county jail is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983. See Eddy v. City of Miami, 715 F.Supp. 1553, 1556 (S.D. Fla. 1999) (indicating that a department which is an integral part of a local government's policing function is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983); Heckman v. Hall, No. 3:07cv268/MCR/MD, 2007 WL 2175919, at *3 (N.D. Fla. July 25, 2007) (holding that county jail is not an actionable legal entity because it does not enjoy a separate legal existence independent of the county or the sheriff's office), report and recommendation adopted by 2007 WL 2428487 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2007).
Upon the court's screening of the Farmer's initial Complaint, the court advised Farmer that the Jail was not a proper Defendant, and the court provided Farmer an opportunity to correct this pleading deficiency by filing an amended complaint (see ECF No. 6). Despite this advisory, Farmer's Amended Complaint names as the sole Defendant an entity not subject to suit under § 1983. Farmer's Amended Complaint does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted and thus should be dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1).
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:
1. That this case be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1).
2. That the clerk of court be directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within fourteen days of the date of the Report and Recommendation. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court's internal use only and does not control. An objecting party must serve a copy of the objections on all other parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.