The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
CALEB Z. POOLE,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 3:22-cv-259-BJD-LLL
MICHAEL TUCKER,
Defendant.
______________________________
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WTHOUT PREJUDICE
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, Plaintiff names one Defendant – Michael Tucker, “MHRC
Director.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff alleges that between May 2020 and December 2020,
he was “deprived of healthy living conditions” and subject to “roach[es,] feces[,]
and black mold.” Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff asserts he suffers from respiratory
problems and seeks monetary damages. Id. at 4.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the Court to dismiss this case
at any time if the Court determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). “A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either
in law or fact.” Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing
Battle v. Central State Hosp., 898 F.2d 126, 129 (11th Cir. 1990)). A complaint
filed in forma pauperis which fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) is not automatically frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 328 (1989). Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) dismissals should be ordered only
when the legal theories are “indisputably meritless,” id. at 327, or when the
claims rely on factual allegations which are “clearly baseless.” Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). “Frivolous claims include claims ‘describing
fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are
all too familiar.’” Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1349 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328).
Additionally, a claim may be dismissed as frivolous when a plaintiff has little
or no chance of success. Id.
The Court must read a plaintiff’s pro se allegations in a liberal fashion.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant deprived him or her of a right
secured under the United States Constitution or federal law, and (2) such
deprivation occurred under color of state law. Salvato v. Miley, 790 F.3d 1286,
1295 (11th Cir. 2015); Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1175 (11th Cir.
2011) (per curiam) (citation omitted); Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 737
(11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (citations omitted). Moreover, in § 1983 suits, the
Eleventh Circuit “requires proof of an affirmative causal connection between
the official’s acts or omissions and the alleged constitutional deprivation.”
Zatler v. Wainwright, 802 F.2d 397, 401 (11th Cir. 1986). More than conclusory
and vague allegations are required to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. See L.S.T., Inc., v. Crow, 49 F.3d 679, 684 (11th Cir. 1995) (per curiam);
Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 556-57 (11th Cir. 1984). As such,
“‘conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts, or legal conclusions
masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal.’” Rehberger v. Henry Cty.,
Ga., 577 F. App’x 937, 938 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (citation omitted).
Without well-pled facts suggesting a federal constitutional deprivation or
violation of a federal right, Plaintiff cannot sustain a cause of action against
Defendant.
Further, a civil rights complaint must include a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Fed. R.
Civil P. 8(a)(2). While not required to include detailed factual allegations, a
complaint must allege “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-
harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Indeed, a
complaint is insufficient “if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further
factual enhancement.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 557 (2007)). A plaintiff must allege sufficient facts “that allows the court
to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id.
Here, Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to establish his
entitlement to relief. He does not claim Defendant violated a particular
constitutional right, and his claims are conclusory and devoid of facts that
would allow the Court to draw reasonable inferences that Defendant violated
his constitutional rights. In answering the form question, “what federal
constitutional or statutory right(s) do you claim is/are being violated by state
or local officials,” Plaintiff wrote, “health code violations,” which stem from
state law. Complaint at 2. Further, Plaintiff has failed to identify with any
specificity the alleged misconduct of Defendant. Instead, Plaintiff generally
alleges only legal conclusions and provides no factual allegations to support a
claim upon which relief can be granted. Thus, the Complaint is due to be
dismissed without prejudice. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; L.S.T., Inc., 49 F.3d at
684; Rehberger, 577 F. App’x at 938.
Accordingly, it is now
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 this case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 21st day of
March, 2022.
fp. i)
KM) Armas
United States District Judge
Jax-7
Cc: Caleb Z. Poole, #2021010497