# Alexander

> District Court, M.D. Florida · May 26, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11372009

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert Alexander v. Duval County Jail, Duval County Jail Medical Department
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** May 26, 2026
- **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/11372009

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11372009. Public record. Not legal advice.