From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Samuel v. Moniz

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
Nov 9, 2022
Civil Action 22-10571-AK (D. Mass. Nov. 9, 2022)

Opinion

Civil Action 22-10571-AK

11-09-2022

STEPHON SAMUEL, Plaintiff, v. SUPERINTENDENT ANTONE MONIZ and CAPTAIN TULLISH, Defendants.


ORDER

ANGEL KELLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Stephon Samuel, a pretrial detainee in custody at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility, filed a pro se complaint alleging that his constitutional rights are being violated by the continued use of full restraints for extended periods of time without a legitimate purpose. [ECF No. 1]. With the complaint, Samuel filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. [ECF No. 2]. Samuel also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. [ECF No. 4].

Samuel indicates that he is a pretrial detainee. [ECF No. 1 at ¶ III].

The Court granted Samuel's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, denied without prejudice his motion for counsel and directed him to file an amended complaint that clearly identify the claims and relief he seeks as to each defendant. [ECF No. 5].

Because Samuel is obligated to make monthly payments towards the filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), the Clerk issued a notice to the treasurer's office. [ECF No. 6].

In response to the Court's Memorandum and Order, Samuel filed an amended complaint against Captain Tullish and Superintendent Moniz, but not Sheriff McDonald and Assistant Superintendent Mattarello. [ECF No. 7]. To the extent the amended complaint is brought against the Plymouth County Correctional Facility, it is not a proper defendant because jails, prisons, and other correctional facilities are only buildings and not suable entities. See e.g, Owens v. Scott County Jail, 328 F.3d 1026, 1027 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding that county jails are not legal entities amendable to suit); Thomas v. Barnstable County Corr. Facility, No. 21-10398-ADB, 2021 WL 2224264 at *2 (D. Mass. June 2, 2021) (county correctional facility not a suable entity).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED

1. The Clerk shall issue summonses for service of the amended complaint on Captain Tullish and Superintendent Moniz.

2. The Clerk shall send the summonses, amended complaint, and this Order to the plaintiff, who must thereafter serve Captain Tullish and Superintendent Moniz in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The plaintiff may elect to have service made by the United States Marshal Service. If directed by the plaintiff to do so, the United States Marshal shall serve the summons, amended complaint, and this Order upon Captain Tullish and Superintendent Moniz in the manner directed by the plaintiff, with all costs of service to be advanced by the United States. Notwithstanding Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) and Local Rule 4.1, the plaintiff shall have 90 days from the date of this Order to complete service.

3. The Clerk shall terminate as parties to this action Sheriff McDonald, Assistant Superintendent Mattarello and the Plymouth County Correctional Facility and shall correct the title to this action on the docket.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Samuel v. Moniz

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
Nov 9, 2022
Civil Action 22-10571-AK (D. Mass. Nov. 9, 2022)
Case details for

Samuel v. Moniz

Case Details

Full title:STEPHON SAMUEL, Plaintiff, v. SUPERINTENDENT ANTONE MONIZ and CAPTAIN…

Court:United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

Date published: Nov 9, 2022

Citations

Civil Action 22-10571-AK (D. Mass. Nov. 9, 2022)