UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

JOSEPH CHRISTOPHER COLON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 3:21-cv-149-BJD-JBT

FLAGLER COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY,

Defendant. ________________________________

ORDER OF DISMISSIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs, Joseph Christopher Colon; Jimmie Lee Belle, III; Nathaniel Ryder Shimmel; Christopher Shane Brock; and Alfred L. Shavers; former detainees of Flagler County Detention Facility, initiated this action by filing a pro se Complaint under

. Doc. 1. They name one Defendant – the Flagler County Jail.

. Plaintiffs allege that while they were housed at Flagler County Jail between November 6, 2017, and January 18, 2021, they were “subject[] to sleep under bright lights 24hrs a day until . . . [they] left for prison.”

. They argue that “(fluorescent) bright lights in cells on 24hrs a day is a form of human torture causing us not to get our proper sleep.”

. According to Plaintiff Colon, as a result of this long-term exposure to bright lights, he still suffers from sleep deprivation, his vision has worsened, and he was diagnosed with PTSD.

. As relief, Plaintiffs appear to seek injunctive relief, and state that “when [Plaintiff Colon’s] eye diagnosis becomes

available, we can see if a price can be put on [his] eyesight.”

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the Court to dismiss a 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

(e)(2)(B). In reviewing a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings, the Court must liberally construe the plaintiff’s allegations. See Haines v. Kerner,

(1972); Bingham v. Thomas,

(11th Cir. 2011).

With respect to whether a complaint “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) mirrors the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), so courts apply the same standard in both contexts. Mitchell v. Farcass,

(11th Cir. 1997); see also Alba v.

Montford,

(11th Cir. 2008). “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,

(2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). “Labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” that amount to “naked assertions” will not do.

(quotations, alteration, and citation omitted). Moreover, a complaint must “contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.” Roe v. Aware Woman

Ctr. for Choice, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2001) (quotations and citations omitted). To state a claim under

, 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. See Salvato v. Miley,

(11th Cir. 2015). Moreover, “conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts, or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal.” Rehberger v. Henry Cnty.,

Ga.,

(11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (quotations and citation omitted). In the absence of a federal constitutional deprivation or violation of a federal right, a plaintiff cannot sustain a cause of action against a defendant.

State law determines whether a party has the capacity to be sued. Dean v. Barber,

(11th Cir. 1992). In Florida, jail facilities are not amenable to suit under § 1983. See Monroe v. Jail, No. 2:15-cv-729-FtM- 99MRM,

, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2015) (“The jail is not an

actionable legal entity because it does not enjoy a separate legal existence independent of the County or the Sheriff’s Office.” (citation omitted)); Mellen v. Florida, No. 3:13-cv-1233-J-34,

, at *8 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 9, 2014) (recognizing that sheriffs offices and jail facilities are not amenable to suit under § 19838); Donovan v. Parker, No. 6:10-cv-855,

, at *2-3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2010) (finding that a sheriffs office and detention center have no capacity to be sued). Because the Flagler County Jail is not a legal entity amenable to suit, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted against it. Thus, the Complaint is due to be dismissed on that basis. See, e.g., Reyle v. Clay Cnty. Jail, No. 3:18-cv-522-J-34JRK,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2018) (holding that dismissal without prejudice was warranted when the only named defendant in action was the Clay County Jail). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. This case is hereby 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 10th day of March, 2021.

Boa ol) i i) Aanue | CAcrnaa

United States District Judge

Jax-7 C: Joseph Christopher Colon, #V22255 Jimmie Lee Belle, III, #V433593 Nathaniel Ryder Shimmel, #A20973 Christopher Shane Brock, #V37752 Alfred L. Shavers, #M10959