HARMON

v.

PRUMMELL

COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE and CHARLOTTE COUNTY JAIL,

Defendants. /

OPINION AND ORDER1

This matter is before the Court on sua sponte review of the record. Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee in the Charlotte County Jai,l began this action as a prisoner civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1).

Plaintiff also moves to proceed in forma pauperis. Because Plaintiff is proceeding IFP, the Court must review his Complaint to determine whether it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a court must review a complaint and dismiss it at any time if the case is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The first standard includes claims based on “an indisputably meritless legal theory,” or claims where the “factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

The second standard is the familiar standard for a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

In making a § 1915(e) review, courts

Under Florida law, sheriff’s departments are not legal entities amenable to suit. See Williams v. Miami Dade Police Dept., 2008 WL 4726101, at *3 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Masson v. Miami–Dade County, 738 So. 2d 431, 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)). Likewise, Florida law does not recognize a county jail as a legal entity subject to suit. Donovan v. Parker, No. 6:10-CV-855, 2010 WL 3259717, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2010).

Thus, the Charlotte County Sheriff’s Office and Jail are dismissed with prejudice. As to Sheriff Prummell, Plaintiff makes no claims alleging how Sheriff Prummell violated his constitutional rights.

Thus, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim under § 1983.

Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se he is given leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned that his amended complaint must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10 set the minimum requirements for pleadings. Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). And Rule 10(b) says “[a] party must state its claims . . . in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Rules 8 and 10 work together and “‘require the pleader to present his claims discretely and succinctly, so that his adversary can discern what he is claiming and frame a responsive pleading, the court can determine which facts support which claims and whether the plaintiff has stated any claims upon which relief can be granted, and, at trial, the court can determine that evidence which is relevant and that which is not.’” Fikes v. City of Daphne, 79 F. 3d 1079, 1082 (11th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted).

Problems arise when a plaintiff does not follow these rules. And Plaintiff must name as Defendants only those persons responsible for the alleged constitutional violations. Plaintiff should succinctly state what rights under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States were violated in the section entitled “Statement of Claim.” It is improper for Plaintiff merely to list constitutional rights or federal rights. Plaintiff must provide support in the statement of facts for the claimed violations. And Plaintiff should describe how each named defendant is involved in the alleged constitutional violation(s).

Plaintiff should note that, in civil rights cases, more than conclusory and vague allegations must state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F. 2d 553, 556-7 (11th Cir. 1984).

Although personal participation is not specifically required for liability under section 1983, there must be some causal connection between the defendant named and the injury allegedly sustained. Sims v. Adams, 537 F. 2d 829 (5th Cir. 1976).

One cannot be held liable for the actions and/or omissions of others but can be held only responsible if he participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights or directed such action and/or omission that caused the deprivation.

Finally, Plaintiff must show specifically how he has been damaged (how he was harmed or injured by the actions and/or omissions of the defendant(s)).

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Plaintiff David Harmon’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.

1. Plaintiff's amended complaint must be filed by June 16, 2020. Failure to do so will cause the Court to dismiss this case without further notice.

2. The Clerk of Court shall provide Plaintiff with a blank standard civil rights form with this case caption and titled “Amended Complaint.” DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 2nd day of June 2020.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SA: FTMP-2 Copies: All Parties of Record