United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
WILLIAM F. TJUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Lucius is a pretrial detainee at Polk County Jail who
initiated this action by filing a civil rights complaint in
which he challenges the conditions of his confinement.
Because Mr. Lucius is proceeding in this action in forma
pauperis, the Court has examined the complaint in accord
with 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Section 1915(e)(2) provides, in
pertinent part, that:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that
may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any
time if the court determines that- (A) the allegation of
poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal- (i) is
frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief.
procedure required by § 1915(e)(2) is a screening
process to be applied by the Court sua sponte. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court finds, for reasons set
forth infra, that the complaint should be dismissed,
with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
Lucius alleges that Defendants "are all responsible in
various ways either directly or indirectly for violating
[his] first amendment right[s] to freedom of speech...
freedom of religion. . .[and] access to the courts"
(Doc. 1, docket p. 16). He contends that his right of access
to the courts was violated because Defendants denied him
adequate legal supplies and federal case law, his right of
freedom of speech was violated because Defendants denied him
books and magazines, and his right of freedom of religion was
violated because Defendants denied him halal food, a prayer
rug and kufi, and religious books and magazines. He further
contends that Defendants have violated the "R.F.R.A.
(Religious Freedom Restoration Act) and the R.L.U.P.A. [sic]
(Religious Land Use and Institutionalized of [sic] Person Act
of 2000)" (Id.). As relief, he seeks an order
directing Defendants to (1) allow him to purchase and receive
"any paperback book coming from a
bookstore/publisher," (2) provide "a proper
Halla/Kosher diet be served to all inmates requesting
so," (3) allow reasonable newspapers and magazines with
the same standards set forth by the Florida Department of
Corrections," (4) pay him costs associated with
"not receiving a proper diet" and "filing this
action," (5) "provide reasonable legal materials
such as (paper, envelopes, pencils, ) and postage for all
indigent inmates," and (6) allow him to purchase and
receive a prayer rug and kuffe (Id., docket pp.
It is unclear which allegations apply to each
8(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires, in pertinent
part, that a complaint include "a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief." A complaint fails to satisfy Rule 8 when it
"lump[s] all the defendants together in each claim and
provid[es] no factual basis to distinguish their
conduct[.]" Lane v. Capital Acquisitions & Mgmt.
Co., 2006 WL 4590705, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2006).
Such a complaint violates Rule 8 because "the individual
defendants cannot determine from the face of the Complaint
which acts or omissions the Plaintiffs seek to hold each of
them liable." Id.
complaint fails to differentiate among the Defendants. Mr.
Lucius lumps all the Defendants together and fails to clearly
indicate which facts and claims are applicable to each
Defendant. He therefore will be required to file an amended
complaint specifying the factual allegations relevant to each
count and to each Defendant.
The allegations in the complaint fail to state a claim of a
violation of access to the courts
have a constitutional right to access to the courts.
Wilson v. Blankenship, 163 F.3d 1284, 1290 (11th
Cir.1998) (citing Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817,
828, (1977)). However, a plaintiff raising a denial of
access-to-court claim "must show actual injury before
seeking relief." Id., 163 F.3d at 1290.
"An inmate may establish an actual injury by
demonstrating that officials have frustrated or impeded his
efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous claim." Miller v.
Sheriff, 550 Fed.Appx. 722, 724 (11th Cir. 2013)
(unpublished) (citing Barbour v. Haley, 471 F.3d
1222, 1225 (11th Cir. 2006)). Moreover, "[a] prisoner
plaintiff alleging a violation of his right of access to the
courts 'must show actual injury in the pursuit of
specific types of nonfrivolous cases: direct or collateral
attacks on sentences and challenges to conditions of
confinement.'" Moulds v. Bullard, 345
Fed.Appx. 387, 394 (11th Cir.2009) (unpublished) (quoting
Wilson, 163 F.3d at 1290). The complaint does not
allege sufficient facts indicating that Mr. Lucius sustained
actual injury from the denial of adequate legal materials.
Mr. Lucius fails to state a claim upon which relief can be