Case Information
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGI A BRUNSWICK DIVISIO N
WILLIAM P . CAMP, JR . ,
Plaintiff , vs . CIVIL ACTION NO . : CV206-260 McINTOSH COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, GEORGE
DEVERGER ; CHARLES JORDAN ;
BOYD GAULT ; WILBERT PROUDFOOT ;
DAVID STEVENS, in their official
capacity ; CHARLES JONES ,
individually and in his official
capacity as Sheriff ; FRANKLIN
HUNTER, individually and in
official capacity as Chief Deputy
Sheriff; DORIS HEIGHT, individually
and in her official capacity as
Administrator and Captain sheriff ;
FNU COLLINS, individually and in
her official capacity as Supervisor
Detention Sheriff ; ELIJAH ROBERTS,
individually and in his official capacity
as Nurse at McIntosh County Jail ;
McCALL AND ASSOCIATES, INC .,
RUSTY McCALL, Individually and in
his capacity as President of McCall &
Associates, Inc . ; DAVID BAKER,
individually ; UNKNOWN UNITED
STATES MARSHALS, individually and
in their official capacities ; FREDDIE
JACKSON ; STEPHEN D . JESUP;
DAVID EARL LANE ; McINTOSH
COUNTY JAIL, and McINTOSH
COUNTY,
Defendants . MAGISTRATE JUDGE ' S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIO N
Plaintiff, an inmate currently confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Oakdale, Louisiana, filed an action pursuant to 42 U .S .C . § 1983 contesting the conditions of his confinement while he was housed at the McIntosh County Jail in Darien, Georgia . A prisoner proceeding in a civil action against officers or employees of government entities must comply with the mandates of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U .S.C. §§ 1915 & 1915A. I n determining compliance, the court shall be guided by the longstanding principle that pro se pleadings are entitled to liberal construction . Haines v . Kerner , 404 U .S. 519, 520, 92 S . Ct. 594, 596, 30 L. Ed . 2d 652 (1972) ; Walker v. Dugger , 860 F .2d 1010, 1011 (11th Cir . 1988) .
28 U .S .C. § 1915A requires a district court to screen the complaint for cognizable claims before or as soon as possible after docketing . The court must dismiss the complaint or any portion of the complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief . 28 U.S .C . § 1915A(b)(1) and (2) .
In Mitchell v . Farcass, 112 F .3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997), the Eleventh Circuit interpreted the language contained in 28 U .S .C . § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which is nearly identical to that contained in the screening provisions at § 1915A(b) . As the language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) closely tracks the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court held that the same standards for determining whether to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) should be applied to prisoner complaints filed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) . Mitchell , 112 F .3d at 1490 . The Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim only where it appears beyond a doubt that a pro se litigant can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief . Hughes v . Rowe , 449 U . S . 5, 10, 101 S . Ct. 173, 176, 66 L . Ed . 2d 163 ( 1980 ); Mitchell , 112 F .3d at 1490 . While the cou rt in Mitchell interpreted § 1915(e ), its interpretation guides this Cou rt in applying the identical language of § 1915A.
Plaintiff asse rt s that he was assaulted by David Baker , a fellow detainee , while he was housed in the McIntosh County Jail . Plaintiff also asse rt s that the jail was not designed and built in a safe manner ; Plaintiff names as Defendants Rusty McCall, the builder , and McCall and Associates , his company.
A plaintiff states a cognizable claim for relief under 42 U . S.C . § 1983 if his complaint alleges facts showing that his rights as secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States were violated , and that the violation was commi tt ed by a person acting under color of state law . Touchston v . McDermo tt, 234 F . 3d 1133 , 1137 ( 11th Cir . 2000) . Plaintiff fails to show that Defendants Baker , McCall , and McCall and Associates were state actors at the time of the alleged assault . Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Baker, McCall , and McCall and Associates should be dismissed .
Plaintiff names as Defendants : George Deverger , Charles Jordan , Boyd Gault, Wilbe rt Proudfoot , David Stevens , Freddie Jackson , Stephen Jesup , and David Earl Lane, who are or were county commissioners . However , Plaintiff makes no factual allegations in his complaint against any of these individuals . A plaintiff must set fo rt h " a sho rt and plain statement of the claim showing that [ he] is entitled to relief ." FED . R. Civ. P . 8 ( a)(2) . As Plaintiff has failed to make any factual allegations against Defendants Deverger, Jordan , Gault , Proudfoot , Stevens , Jackson , Jesup , and Lane his claims against Defendants Deverger , Jordan, Gault, Proudfoot , Stevens , Jackson , Jesup , and Lane should be dismissed .
Plaintiff contends that unknown United States Marshals Service employees were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety because they contracted with the McIntosh County Jail to house federal pre-trial detainees . It appears that Plaintiff wishes to hold the United States Marshals Service liable in this cause of action , as the agency is the entity which contracts with state prisons to house federal pre-trial detainees . However, to the extent the United States Marshals Service is the employer of any person Plaintiff wishes to name individually , Plaintiff ' s claims against the United States Marshals Service cannot be sustained . See FDIC v. Meyer , 510 U . S. 471, 485-86 , 1 14 S. Ct . 996,1005-06,127 L . Ed . 2d 308 ( 1994).
Plaintiff names the McIntosh County Jail as a Defendant in his Amended Complaint . While local governments qualify as " persons " to whom section 1983 applies, Monell v . Dep't of Soc . Servs . , 436 U . S . 658 , 663, 98 S . Ct. 2018 , 2022 , 56 L . Ed . 2d 611 (1978) ; Parker v. Williams , 862 F .2d 1471, 1477 (11th Cir . 1989 ), jails, as mere arms of such governments , are not generally considered legal entities subject to suit . See Grech v . Clayton County , Ga., 335 F. 3d 1326 , 1343 ( 11th Cir . 2003 ) . Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot state a claim against the McIntosh County Jail, as it is merely the vehicle through which the county governs and is not a proper pa rt y defendant .
Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered damages as a result of the torts of assault and battery, nuisance , and intentional infliction of emotional distress . Section 1983 imposes liability for violations of rights protected by the Constitution , not for violations of duties of care arising out of to rt law ." Baker v . McCollan , 443 U .S . 137, 146, 99 S . Ct. 2689, 2695 , 61 L . Ed . 2d 433 (1979) . Accordingly, Plaintiffs state law tort claims cannot be sustained in the instant cause of action .
In addition, Plaintiff asserts in his amended Complaint that McIntosh County acted negligently, which caused him to suffer injuries . Plaintiffs claims against McIntosh County cannot be sustained, as he does not allege that the County violated his constitutional rights .
Finally, Plaintiff has named Defendants in their official capacities . A lawsuit against a state official or a state agency in its official capacity is no different from a suit against a state itself; such defendants are immune . Will v. Michigan Dept . of State Police , 491 U .S. 58, 71, 109 S . Ct. 2304, 2312, 105 L . Ed . 2d 45 (1989) . To the extent Roberts, Collins, Jones, Hunter, and Height are named as Defendants in their official capacities, Plaintiffs claims against these Defendants in their official capacities should be dismissed .
Plaintiffs cognizable claims are addressed in an Order of even date .
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is my RECOMMENDATION that Plaintiffs claims agains t Defendants Baker, McCall, McCall and Associates, Deverger, Jordan, Gault, Proudfoot, Stevens, Jackson, Jesup, Lane, McIntosh County, and Unknown United States Marshals be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted . It is also my RECOMMENDATION that Plaintiffs state tort law claims be DISMISSED , without prejudice . It is my further RECOMMENDATION that Plaintiffs monetary claims agains t Defendants Collins, Roberts, Jones, Hunter, and Height in their official capacities b e DISMISSED .
SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED , this day of November, 2006 . MES E . G HAM NITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDG E