Irby v. The Medical Staff at Columbia Correction Institution

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

ARRIUS T. IRBY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:23-cv-723-MMH-JBT

THE MEDICAL STAFF AT

COLUMBIA CORRECTIONAL

INSITUTITON, et al.,

Defendant.

_________________________________

ORDER

Plaintiff Arrius T. Irby, a former inmate of the Florida Department of

Corrections (FDOC),1 initiated this action in the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida on June 16, 2023, by filing a pro se

Complaint (Complaint; Doc. 1) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The assigned judge

transferred the action to the Middle District of Florida on June 27, 2023. Doc.

4. In the Complaint, Irby names as Defendants: (1) the “Medical Staff at

Columbia Correctional Institution [Columbia CI],” and (2) supervisor F.C.

Hughes. Complaint at 1. Irby alleges that he sustained a “hernia injury,” for

which medical saw him on February 27, 2023. Id. at 2. According to Irby,

1 The Florida Department of Corrections’ website shows Irby was released from

custody on August 3, 2023. See Offender Search, Florida Department of Corrections,

(last visited August 7, 2023).

medical has delayed his surgery, and as a result, he experiences severe pain.

Id.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) 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.2 See 28

U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B); 1915A. “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. Cent. 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

only be ordered 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 it appears

2 Irby requests to proceed as a pauper. See Motion (Doc. 3).

2

that a plaintiff has little or no chance of success. Id. As to whether a complaint

“fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” the language of the

PLRA mirrors the language of Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

and therefore courts apply the same standard in both contexts.3 Mitchell v.

Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Alba v. Montford, 517

F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1)

the defendant deprived him 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); Richardson v.

Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 737 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). Moreover, under

Eleventh Circuit precedent, to prevail in a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must show

“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) (citation omitted); Porter v. White, 483 F.3d 1294, 1306

n.10 (11th Cir. 2007).

3 “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544, 570 (2007)).

3

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint need only

contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. (8)(a)(2). In addition, all reasonable inferences

should be drawn in favor of the plaintiff. See Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701,

705 (11th Cir. 2010). Nonetheless, the plaintiff still must meet some minimal

pleading requirements. Jackson v. BellSouth Telecomms., 372 F.3d 1250,

1262-63 (11th Cir. 2004). Indeed, while “[s]pecific facts are not necessary[,]”

the complaint should “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is

and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93

(2007) (per curiam) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555

(2007)). Further, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief

that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “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). While not required to

include detailed factual allegations, a complaint must allege “more than an

unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id.

A “plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the

4

elements of a cause of action will not do[.]” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal

quotations omitted); see also Jackson, 372 F.3d at 1262 (explaining that

“conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions

masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal” (original alteration

omitted)). Indeed, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the

allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal

conclusions[,]”which simply “are not entitled to [an] assumption of truth.”

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 680. In the absence of well-pled facts suggesting a

federal constitutional deprivation or violation of a federal right, a plaintiff

cannot sustain a cause of action against the defendant.

In assessing the Complaint, the Court must read Irby’s pro se allegations

in a liberal fashion. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). And, while “[p]ro se

pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by

attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed,” Tannenbaum v. United

States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998), “‘this leniency does not give the

court a license to serve as de facto counsel for a party or to rewrite an otherwise

deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.’” Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd.,

760 F.3d 1165, 1168-69 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cnty. of

5

Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted), overruled

in part on other grounds as recognized in Randall, 610 F.3d at 709).

Liberally read, Irby’s Complaint fails to state a plausible § 1983 claim

against Defendants. First, the Medical Staff at Columbia CI is not a legal

entity capable of being sued or a person for purposes of § 1983 litigation. See

Murphy v. Turpin, 159 F. App’x 945, 949 n.4 (11th Cir. 2005)4 (“[T]he medical

unit cannot be sued under § 1983, because it is not a person.”); Hines v.

Wexford Health Source, Inc., No. 15-CIV-22472, 2015 WL 13821270, at *4 (S.D.

Fla. July 31, 2015)5 (“[A] state prison’s medical department is not a person or

an entity subject to suit because it does not have a legal existence.”), report and

recommendation adopted by, No. 15-22472-CIV, 2015 WL 13821215 (S.D. Fla.

Oct. 6, 2015). In addition, it appears Irby sues Hughes based on her

supervisory position. Complaint at 1. The Eleventh Circuit has held that “[i]t

is well established in this Circuit that supervisory officials are not liable under

4 The Court does not rely on unpublished opinions as binding precedent;

however, they may be cited in this Order when the Court finds them persuasive on a

particular point. See McNamara v. GEICO, 30 F.4th 1055, 1060-61 (11th Cir. 2022);

see generally Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 11th Cir. R. 36-2 (“Unpublished opinions are not

considered binding precedent, but they may be cited as persuasive authority.”).

5 The Court notes that although decisions of other district courts are not

binding, they too may be cited as persuasive authority. See Stone v. First Union

Corp., 371 F.3d 1305, 1310 (11th Cir. 2004) (noting that, “[a]lthough a district court

would not be bound to follow any other district court’s determination, the decision

would have significant persuasive effects.”).

6

§ 1983 for the unconstitutional acts of their subordinates on the basis of

respondeat superior or vicarious liability.” Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352,

1360 (11th Cir. 2003), abrogated in part on other grounds by Randall v. Scott,

610 F.3d 701 (11th Cir. 2010). To establish individual liability for supervisory

conduct, a plaintiff must show “that the supervisor either directly participated

in the unconstitutional conduct or that a causal connection exists between the

supervisor’s actions and the alleged constitutional violation.” Keith v. DeKalb

Cnty., 749 F.3d 1034, 1047-48 (11th Cir. 2014).

Causation “may be established and supervisory

liability imposed where the supervisor’s improper

custom or policy results in deliberate indifference to

constitutional rights.” Id.[6] (alterations adopted)

(internal quotation marks omitted). “A plaintiff can

also show that the absence of a policy led to a violation

of constitutional rights.” Piazza,[7] 923 F.3d at 957.

“Either way, though, to prove that a policy or its

absence caused a constitutional harm, a plaintiff must

point to multiple incidents, or multiple reports of prior

misconduct by a particular employee.” Id. (citation

omitted). And allegations of a single incident of

unconstitutional conduct cannot state a claim for

supervisory liability, even when the conduct involves

several subordinates. Id. at 957-58.

Ingram v. Kubik, 30 F.4th 1241, 1254 (11th Cir. 2022).

6 Hartley v. Parnell, 193 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 1999).

7 Piazza v. Jefferson Cnty., 923 F.3d 947 (11th Cir. 2019).

7

Here, Irby has not alleged sufficient facts to show that Hughes was

personally involved in, or otherwise causally connected to, the alleged violation

of his rights. Indeed, in the Complaint, Irby sets forth no factual allegations

about Hughes’s involvement in the underlying incident. As such, he fails to

state a claim against Hughes. Therefore, this case will be dismissed without

prejudice to Irby’s right to refile his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with factual

allegations sufficient to support a claim for relief against a proper defendant if

he elects to do so.

Therefore, it is now

ORDERED:

1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

2. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment dismissing this case

without prejudice, terminating any pending motions, and closing the case.

DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 14th day of

August, 2028.

United States District Judge

Jax-9 8/7

c: Arrius T. Irby, #133074

9