POOLE
v.
INTOWN SUITES
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.
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he did not allege the defendant was a state actor.
Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee, sued a hotel for allegedly subjecting him to unfit living conditions between May 2020 and December 2020. Plaintiff sou…
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 State Actor Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff Caleb Poole, a pretrial detainee housed at Montgomery Correctional Center in Jacksonville, Florida, initiated this case by filing a pro se Civil Rights Complaint (Complaint; Doc. 1) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the Complaint, Poole names one Defendant – InTown Suites, an extended stay hotel in Jacksonville, Florida. Id. at 2. He alleges that between May 2020 and December 2020, Defendant subjected Poole to “unfit living conditions,” such as “mold as well as roaches.”1 Id. at 4-5. As relief, Poole seeks monetary damages. Id. at 5.
“Section 1983 provides judicial remedies to a claimant who can prove that a person acting under color of state law committed an act that deprived the claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Hale v. Tallapoosa Cnty., 50 F. 3d
1579, 1582 (11th Cir. 1995). “Only in rare circumstances can a private party be viewed as a ‘state actor’ for section 1983 purposes.” Rayburn ex rel. Rayburn v. Hogue, 241 F. 3d 1341, 1347 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting Harvey v. Harvey, 949 F. 2d 1127, 1130 (11th Cir. 1992)). To show a defendant acted under color of state law, the plaintiff must allege a sufficient relationship between the defendant and the state. See Farrow v. West, 320 F. 3d 1235, 1239 n.3 (11th Cir. 2003). Here, Poole does not allege that Defendant is a state actor subject to liability under § 1983. Moreover, his Complaint contains no factual allegations suggesting a close nexus between Defendant, a hotel, and the state such that Defendant’s activity may be attributable to the state. See, e.g., Roque v. Jazz Casino Co. LLC, 388 F. App’x 402, 404 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding “hotel and supervisory employee were not state actors and thus not liable for alleged discrimination under § 1983.”). Nor does Poole identify with any specificity Defendant’s alleged unconstitutional acts. Instead, Poole generally asserts Defendant participated in a “health code violation,” which stems from state law. Complaint at 4. Thus, Poole has failed to state a plausible claim for relief, and his Complaint is due to be dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing this case without prejudice, terminate any pending motions, and close the file. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 14th day of March, 2022.
United States District Judge
Jax-7 C: Caleb Poole, #2021010497
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972)
- GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cnty. OF Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 1998)
- Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2011)
- Farrow v. Dr. West, 320 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2003)
- Brantley Tyler Rayburn v. Skip Hogue, 241 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2001)