United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division
DAVID D. JEFFERSON, JR., Plaintiff,
DUVAL PRETRIAL DETENTION FACILITY, Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
J. DAVIS United States District Judge
a pretrial detainee at the Duval County's John E. Goode
Pretrial Detention Facility (“Duval County
Jail”), initiated this action by filing a pro se Civil
Rights Complaint Form (Complaint) (Doc. 1). Plaintiff also
filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. 2). In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts
that he was taken from the “Jacksonville County
Jail” to the Florida State Hospital (FSH) against his
will. Complaint at 5. Plaintiff alleges that he stayed at the
FSH for one year and seven months, and because of his stay he
is “mentally messed up.” Id.
Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the Court to dismiss a
case at any time if the Court determines that the action is
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from suit relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) - (iii). With respect to
whether a complaint “fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted, ” the language of §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) mirrors that of Rule 12(b)(6), Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure, as such courts apply the same
standard in both contexts. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112
F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Alba v.
Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008).
“To survive a motion to dismiss, 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) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Labels and conclusions”
or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action” that amount to “naked
assertions” will not do. Id. (quotation and
citation omitted). Moreover, a complaint must “contain
either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the
material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some
viable legal theory.” Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. For
Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 683-84 (11th Cir. 2001)
(internal quotation and citation omitted). In conducting this
review, of course the Court is mindful of its obligation to
read a pro se litigants allegations in a liberal fashion.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege that (1) the defendant deprived him of a right secured
under the United States Constitution or federal law, and (2)
such deprivation occurred under color of state law.
Salvato v. Miley, 790 F.3d 1286, 1295 (11th Cir.
2015); Bingham, 654 F.3d at 1175. In the absence of
a federal constitutional deprivation or violation of a
federal right, a plaintiff cannot sustain a cause of action
against a defendant.
initial matter, Plaintiff fails to name the defendants he
seeks in sue in the caption of the Complaint or list any
defendants under section IV, “Parties” of the
Complaint. Nevertheless, liberally construing the Complaint
that mentions “the jail” and “the
courthouse”, the Court concludes that Plaintiff seeks
to sue the Duval County Jail and the Duval County Courthouse
(DCC). Complaint at 6. That said, neither Defendants are
proper defendants in a § 1983 case. See Baker v.
Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, No.
3:16-cv-1202-J-34MCR, Doc. 4 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2016)
(dismissing action finding the Jacksonville Sheriff's
Office and Duval County Jail were not legal entities subject
to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Williams v. Monroe
Cty. Dist. Att'y, No. 14-0250-CG-M, 2016 WL 109998,
at *1 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 7, 2016) (adopting the report and
recommendation that recommended dismissing the Monroe County
Courthouse as a defendant because it was not a legal entity
subject to suit or liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983);
White v. Duval Cty. Pretrial Det. Facility, No.
3:11-cv-635-J-32MCR, Doc. 7 (M.D. Fla. July 6, 2011)
(dismissing the Duval County Pretrial Detention Facility as a
defendant because it was not an entity subject to suit under
42 U.S.C. § 1983); Ortiz-Bachorik v. Orange Cty.
Courthouse (Orlando), No. 6:11-cv-30-Orl-22KRS, 2011 WL
613682, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 2011) (adopting the report
and recommendation that recommended dismissing the Orange
County Courthouse (Orlando) as a defendant from a § 1983
action because it was not a proper defendant).
assuming Plaintiff can assert defendants amenable to suit,
Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to establish that
a constitutional deprivation has occurred. Even to the extent
Plaintiff can sue the DCC as a municipality, Plaintiff fails
to allege the DCC had a custom or policy that caused a
constitutional deprivation. See McDowell v. Brown,
392 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th Cir. 2004) (“to impose §
1983 liability on a municipality, a plaintiff must show: (1)
that his constitutional rights were violated; (2) that the
municipality had a custom or policy that constituted
deliberate indifference to that constitutional right; and (3)
that the policy or custom caused the violation.”).
Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted.
on the foregoing, the Court dismisses this case without
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Clerk of Court shall enter judgment dismissing this case
without prejudice, terminate any ...