Opinion
CV 121-064
08-10-2021
LUKE BUNYON, Plaintiff, v. THE COUNTY OF RICHMOND, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, Defendant.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BRIAN K. EPPS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Burke County Detention Center in Waynesboro, Georgia, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis ("IFP") in this case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because he is proceeding IFP, Plaintiff's complaint must be screened to protect potential defendants. Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 785 (11th Cir. 1984) (per curiam); Al-Amin v. Donald. 165 Fed.Appx. 733, 736 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
I. SCREENING THE COMPLAINT
A. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff names The County of Richmond, Law Enforcement Officers as the sole Defendant. (Doc. no. 1, pp. 1-2.) Taking all of Plaintiff s allegations as true, as the Court must for purposes of the present screening, the facts are as follows. On or about July 20-22, 2020, unspecified deputies from the Richmond County Sheriffs Office handcuffed and beat Plaintiff, and left him cuffed until the following day. (Id at 4, 8.) The cuffs were too tight on Plaintiffs wrists, resulting in gangrene, blood clots, and two amputated fingers. (Id.) The jail has not provided the medication needed to treat Plaintiffs injuries, and he has been in and out of the hospital since August 30, 2020. (Id at 5, 7.) Plaintiff seeks immediate release from incarceration and $1 million. (Id at 8.)
B. DISCUSSION
1. Legal Standard for Screening
The complaint or any portion thereof may be dismissed if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). A claim is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). "Failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard as dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)." Wilkerson v. H & S, Inc., 366 Fed.Appx. 49, 51 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (citing Mitchell v. Farcass. 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997)).
To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the allegations in the complaint must "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). That is, "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. While Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not require detailed factual allegations, "it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A complaint is insufficient if it "offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action, "' or if it "tenders 'naked assertions' devoid of 'further factual enhancement.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557). In short, the complaint must provide a '"plain statement' possessing] enough heft to 'sho[w] that the pleader is entitled to relief" Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).
Finally, the Court affords a liberal construction to a pro se litigant's pleadings, holding them to a more lenient standard than those drafted by an attorney. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, this liberal construction does not mean that the Court has a duty to re-write the complaint. Snow v. DirecTV, Inc., 450 F.3dl314, 1320 (11th Cir. 2006).
2. Plaintiff Fails to Identify Any Officer by Name
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against any individual officer because he never identifies them by name or describes them in sufficient detail to allow for their identification. Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 738 (11th Cir. 2010).
3. The Richmond County Sherriff's Department is Not Subject to Liability in a § 1983 Suit
The Richmond County Sheriff's Department is not a legal entity subject to liability under § 1983. See Lawal v. Fowler, 196 Fed.Appx. 765, 768 (11th Cir. 2006) (affirming dismissal of Douglas County SherrifPs Department as defendant in § 1983 action); Green v. Cunningham, No. 4:18-cv-210, 2018 WL 6310269, at *3 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 3, 2018) (dismissing claim against Chatham County Metropolitan Police Department because "the police department is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983."); Northrup v. City of Brunswick, No. 2:17-cv-126, 2018 WL 715439, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 5, 2018) ("Police departments and sheriff's departments are not one of the three legal entities subject to suit."); Wilkerson v. Brown. No. 6:16-CV-66, 2016 WL 4472972, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 23, 2016) ("[T]he Bulloch County Sheriff's Department is not an entity subject to suit under Section 1983."); Ga. Insurers Insolvency Pool v. Elbert Cty., 368 S.E.2d 500, 502 (Ga. 1988) (limiting § 1983 liability to "(1) natural persons; (2) an artificial person (a corporation); and (3) such quasi-artificial persons as the law recognizes as being capable to sue") (quotations omitted). Thus, Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against the Richmond County Sherriff s Department.
4. Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim Against Richmond County
To impose § 1983 liability on a municipality or county, a plaintiff must allege "(1) that his constitutional rights were violated; (2) that the municipality had a custom or policy that constituted deliberate indifference to that constitutional right, and (3) that the policy or custom caused the violation." See McDowell v. Brown. 392 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff fails to allege any facts to satisfy these elements and thus fails to state a claim against Richmond County.
5. Plaintiff Is Not Entitled to Release from Custody
Plaintiff cannot seek release from custody in this civil action but must, instead, file a habeas petition if he wishes to challenge the conviction and sentence that led to his incarceration. "Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); requests for relief turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a § 1983 action. " Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (per curiam); see also Siskos v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 817 Fed.Appx. 760, 764 (11th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (same). Therefore, relief in the form of immediate release is not available in these proceedings and such claim should be dismissed.
II. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS Plaintiffs complaint be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and this civil action be CLOSED.
SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED