# Irby v. The Medical Staff at Columbia Correction Institution

> District Court, M.D. Florida · August 14, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10113649

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** August 14, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10113649

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal” (original alteration omitted)
- 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.”

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10113649. Public record. Not legal advice.