Alexander

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

ROBERT ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:26-cv-805-MMH-SJH

DUVAL COUNTY JAIL, DUVAL

COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL

DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in

District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) (“Motion”). Doc. 2. For

the reasons that follow, the undesigned recommends that the Motion be denied and

that this case be dismissed without prejudice.

I. Standard

The Court may allow a plaintiff to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs

where such plaintiff has demonstrated through the filing of an affidavit that the plaintiff

is “unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Even if a

motion sufficiently demonstrates a plaintiff meets the financial criteria to proceed in

forma pauperis, however, the Court is also obligated to review the case pursuant to

§ 1915(e)(2) and to dismiss the case if it determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or

malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B).

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule(s)”), a pleading stating “a

claim for relief must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the

court’s jurisdiction …; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought ….” Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a). In addition, a party must state its claims “in numbered paragraphs, each limited

as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).1

Though pro se pleadings are construed liberally: (i) such liberal construction does

not permit a court “to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise

deficient pleading in order to sustain an action”; and (ii) pro se litigants must “comply

with the rules of procedure.” LaCroix v. W. Dist. of Ky, 627 F. App’x 816, 818 (11th Cir.

2015);2 Carvel v. Godley, 404 F. App’x 359, 361 (11th Cir. 2010).

II. Background

Plaintiff’ filed a Complaint for a Civil Case (“Complaint”), Doc. 1, and the

1 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 Atlantic Corp.

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the

elements of a cause of action” that amount to “naked assertions” will not do. Id. Rather, “[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.” Id. Though detailed

factual allegations are not required to satisfy this standard, Rule 8(a) demands “more than an

unadorned, the defendant unlawfully harmed me accusation.” Id. The well pled allegations must

nudge the claim “across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent; however, they may be cited when

persuasive on a particular point. See United States v. Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286, 1289–90 (11th Cir. 2000);

11th Cir. R. 36–2.

Motion. On April 24, 2026, the Court entered an Order (“Prior Order”) taking the

Motion under advisement, identifying multiple deficiencies in the Complaint, and

directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint in compliance with the Prior Order

and all applicable rules and law. Doc. 3. After discussing the foregoing standard, the

Court explained in the Prior Order that the Complaint was deficient in multiple

respects, including that it did not assert a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction and that it

contained vague and conclusory allegations that appeared to combine and commingle

different claims into a single count. See id.; see also Merryman v. St. Johns River Water

Mgmt. Dist., No. 3:24-cv-658-MMH-SJH, 2024 WL 4625724, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 30,

2024); Gregory v. City of Tarpon Springs, No. 8:16-cv-237-T-33AEP, 2016 WL 2961558,

at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 23, 2016). The Prior Order continued:

Beyond these deficiencies, liberally construed, it appears Plaintiff may be

attempting to seek relief against the Duval County Jail for alleged

constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Doc. 1 at 2, 6. But

with respect to any “claim against the Duval County Jail, state law

determines whether a party has the capacity to be sued[,]” and “Florida

law has not established jails as entities amenable to suit under § 1983.”

Stephens v. UF Health of Jacksonville, No. 3:24-cv-397-MMH-LLL, 2024

WL 4109364, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 6, 2024); see also Watkins v. Chase,

No. 3:21-cv-1090-BJD-LLL, 2021 WL 6064820, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec.

22, 2021); Miles v. Off. of the Sheriff Mike Williams, No. 3:19-cv-1031-J-

32MCR, 2019 WL 4805564, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 1, 2019).

Doc. 3 at 3–4. Thus, the Prior Order directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint in

compliance with the Prior Order and all applicable rules and law, cautioning that a

failure to do so would result in a recommendation that the Motion be denied and this

case be dismissed. Id. at 4–5. Among other instructions, the Prior Order explained:

The amended complaint must comply with the Rules, including Rules 8

and 10. Under Rule 8, it must contain (i) a short and plain statement of

the grounds for this Court’s jurisdiction; (ii) a short and plain statement

of the claim showing Plaintiff is entitled to relief; and (iii) a demand for

the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Under Rule 10, it must be stated in

numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of

circumstances. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10. Thus, Plaintiff should state all facts on

which he relies to support his claim(s) in sequentially numbered

paragraphs. Where necessary for clarity, discrete claims should be

separated into different counts.

Id.

On May 8, 2026, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (“Amended

Complaint”). Doc. 4. The Amended Complaint does not comply with the Rules or all

the instructions in the Prior Order. See id. For example,3 the Amended Complaint does

not contain any statement on the grounds for this Court’s jurisdiction; is entirely in

narrative format without any separately numbered paragraphs; and, to the extent

discernable, appears to improperly combine and commingle different (and unrelated)

claims into a single undifferentiated count. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a);

Doc. 3 at 2–5; Merryman, 2024 WL 4625724, at *2.

In addition to this impermissible and shotgun manner of pleading, as with the

Complaint, liberally construing the Amended Complaint, it appears that Plaintiff may

be attempting to seek relief against the Duval County Jail for alleged constitutional

violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Doc. 4 at 1–2. But as the Prior Order explained,

see Doc. 3 at 3–4, with respect to any “claim against the Duval County Jail, state law

3 The Prior Order did not purport to address all deficiencies in the Complaint, and this Report

and Recommendation similarly does not purport to address all deficiencies in the Amended

Complaint.

determines whether a party has the capacity to be sued[,]” and “Florida law has not

established jails as entities amenable to suit under § 1983.” Stephens, 2024 WL

4109364, at *2; see also Watkins, 2021 WL 6064820, at *3; Miles, 2019 WL 4805564, at

*2.4

In short, despite the instructions in the Prior Order and the opportunity to file a

proper pleading in compliance with the Rules, the Amended Complaint is deficient.

Accordingly, it is respectfully recommended that:

1. The Motion, Doc. 2, be denied.

2. This case be dismissed without prejudice.

3. The Clerk of Court be directed to terminate any pending motions and

close the file.

Notice

“Within 14 days after being served with a copy of [a] recommended disposition,

a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “A party may respond to another party’s

objections within 14 days after being served with a copy.” Id. A party’s failure to serve

and file specific objections to the proposed findings and recommendations impacts the

4 The Prior Order further noted that even if Plaintiff had named a proper party, the Complaint

did not state any basis for municipal liability under § 1983. See Doc. 3 at 4 n.2. The same remains true

of the Amended Complaint. See McDowell v. Brown, 392 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th Cir. 2004) (“[T]o

impose § 1983 liability on a municipality, a plaintiff must show: (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 also Harvey v. City

of Stuart, 296 F. App’x 824, 826 (11th Cir. 2008); Miles, 2019 WL 4805564, at *2.

scope of review by a district judge and by an appellate court. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); 11th Cir. R. 3-1. “The district judge must determine

de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected

to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

“A party failing to object to a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations

contained in a report and recommendation ... waives the right to challenge on appeal

the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions|.]” 11th

Cir. R. 3-1.

DONE AND ENTERED in Jacksonville, Florida, on May 26, 2026.

[Z J. Horovitz

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to:

The Honorable Marcia Morales Howard

Pro se Plaintiff