STEVERSON
v.
DIXON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A prisoner pro se brought an amended complaint against Department of Corrections officials alleging Eighth Amendment violations. The court dismissed claims against one defendant entirely and dismissed official capacity claims against two other defendants for failure to allege facts showing official policy or custom caused the injury, allowing the case to proceed only on individual capacity Eighth Amendment claims.
Claims against Solorzano-Pallais are dismissed with prejudice; official capacity claims against Uney and Miller are dismissed with prejudice because plaintiff failed to allege facts showing the defendants' actions were taken pursuant to a custom, policy, or practice of the Department of Corrections or policymaker. Eighth Amendment claims against Uney and Miller in their individual capacities may proceed.
[1] A complaint filed by a prisoner seeking redress from a governmental entity or officer must be dismissed if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon whic…
[2] Claims against a state official in their official capacity are not suits against the official but rather against the official's office.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[A] suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official's office”
Establishes that official capacity suits are treated as suits against the office, not the individual officer
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Steverson, a prisoner, filed an amended complaint against Defendants Dixon, Solorzano-Pallais, Uney, and Miller, all apparently Department o…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 28 U.S.C. § 1915A Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) ("[A] suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official's office."); McFarland v. City of Tampa, 2016 WL 695986, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2016) (“To pursue a claim in a defendant's official capacity, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that an official policy or custom caused the alleged injury."). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1. All claims against Defendant R. Solorzano-Pallais are DISMISSED with prejudice.
2. The Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE Defendant R. Solorzano-Pallais as a party to this action.
3. All claims against Defendant Uney and Defendant Miller in their official capacities are DISMISSED with prejudice.
4. This action will proceed on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant Uney and Defendant Miller in their individual capacities.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on May 9, 2024.
Charlene Edwards Honeywell Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge
Copy to: Plaintiff, pro se
2
[fn 1]: Section 1915A provides that a Court shall review a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity, and shall dismiss same, or any portion thereof, if the Court determines that the complaint is “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted[.]"