Guirlando v. Union Cnty. Jai
| Decision Date | 28 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL 1:21-cv-01013 |
| Parties | MARCO GUIRLANDO PLAINTIFF v. UNION COUNTY JAI; CAPTAIN RICHARD MITCHAM; LIEUTENANT BILLY PERRY; LIEUTENANT JOHN WARD; LIEUTENANT PAUL KUGLER; NURSE SHERIE RICE; DR. DEANNA HOPSON; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TUBBS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER KEVIN PENDLETON; SHERIFF RICKY ROBERTS, Union County, Arkansas; CITY TELE COIN; and JERRY JUNEAU, Chief Operating Officer City Tele Coin DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff Marco Guirlando pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation.
The case is before the Court for preservice screening under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Pursuant to § 1915A(a), the Court has the obligation to screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
Plaintiff is currently an inmate in the Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility in Tutwiler, Mississippi. His claims in this lawsuit arise from alleged incidents which occurred while he was incarcerated in the Union County Jail (“UCJ”) in El Dorado, Arkansas. Plaintiff filed his original complaint on March 25, 2021, in the United States District Court, Western District of Louisiana.
(ECF No. 1). On March 31, 2021, an order was entered transferring the case to the Western District of Arkansas, El Dorado Division. (ECF No. 3).
In his original Complaint, Plaintiff attempted to assert unrelated claims against eighteen (18) Defendants while he was incarcerated at two separate facilities. Plaintiff named the following Defendants in the original Complaint: (1) City Tele Coin (“CTC”) and its Chief Operating Officer Jerry Juneau - each of whom resides in Bossier City Louisiana. Plaintiff stated they were “added for discovery purpose”; (2) Captain Richard Mitcham, Billy Perry, John Ward, Paul Kugler, Nurse Sherie Rice, Dr. Deanna Hopson, Correctional Officer Tubbs, Kevin Pendleton, UCJ, and Sheriff Ricky Roberts - each of whom is employed by or provides services to the UCJ; and (3) the Ouachita County Jail (“OCJ”), Sheriff David Norwood, Captain Cameron Owens, C/O McDonald, Nurse Doe, and C/O Erwing - each of whom is employed by or provides services to the OCJ. (ECF No. 1, pp. 4-5).
On April 5, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint and a completed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application by April 26, 2021. (ECF No. 6). In this order the Court: (1) terminated the OCJ and the UCJ as Defendants because they are buildings, not legal entities subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) terminated CTC and Jerry Juneau as Defendants because Plaintiff did not assert any claims against them and clearly stated he had named them solely for the purpose of discovery; and (3) severed the claims against Sheriff David Norwood, Captain Cameron Owens, Officer McDonald, Nurse Doe, and Officer Erwing and opened up, Guirlando v. Ouachita County Jail, et al., Case No. 1:21-1015, a lawsuit naming the Ouachita County individuals as Defendants. Id.
After two extensions of time, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on June 24, 2021. (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff specifically names the following Defendants in the Amended Complaint:
the UCJ; Captain Richard Mitcham; Sheriff Ricky Roberts; Lieutenant Billy Perry; Lieutenant John Ward; Lieutenant Paul Kugler; Officer Tubbs; Officer Kevin Pendleton; Nurse Sherie Rice; Dr. Deanna Hopson; CTC; and Jerry Juneau. Instead of using the § 1983 form complaint sent to him, Plaintiff only provides limited information on the form complaint and then refers the reader to an attached typewritten eighteen-page complaint.
Under § 1915A, the Court is obligated to screen the case prior to service of process being issued. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action is malicious when the allegations are known to be false, or it is undertaken for the purpose of harassing or disparaging the named defendants rather than to vindicate a cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F.Supp. 458, 464 (E.D. N.C. 1987); In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1293-94 (8th Cir. 1988). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
“In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts to state a claim, we hold ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded . . . to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'” Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). This means “that if the essence of an allegation is discernable, even though it is not pleaded with legal nicety, then the district court should construe the complaint in a way that permits the layperson's claim to be considered within the proper legal framework.” Id. at 544. However, the complaint must still allege specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).
Plaintiff states that while he was incarcerated in the UCJ he was awaiting trial on pending criminal charges.[1] (ECF No. 19 at 5). It is impossible to ascertain from the Amended Complaint the dates of his incarceration in the UCJ. However, Plaintiff alleges that “[f]or the biggest part of [his] pre-trial detention, he was held in very harsh conditions in the tortuous hands of Defendant Captain Richard Mitcham at (UCJ).” Id. at 9.[2]
In the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19), Plaintiff expounds on legal theory, makes broad legal statements, and even cites the Court to various cases. The Amended Complaint contains few dates which makes it difficult to determine when specified events occurred or how long specified conditions lasted.
Plaintiff divides his Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19) into the following claims:
Plaintiff is suing Defendants in their personal and official capacities. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, a declaratory judgment, and various forms of injunctive relief.[4] As is clear from above, Plaintiff has grouped multiple distinct legal claims under his headings. Rather than proceed using Plaintiff's arbitrary division of claims, the Court will proceed by summarizing the allegations of the Amended Complaint under the discernable legal claims and then determine whether these allegations state plausible claims.
Plaintiff names the UJC as a Defendant in the Amended Complaint. As previously stated, the Court once before dismissed the UJC because the jail is a building, not a legal entity subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Owens v. Scott Cnty. Jail, 328 F.3d 1026, 1027 (8th Cir. 2003)(a detention facility is not a legal entity that can be sued in § 1983).
Accordingly, by separate Order Union County will be substituted in place of the UCJ.
Plaintiff states he has named Jerry Juneau for discovery purposes as he is the Chief Executive Officer of CTC. Plaintiff makes no factual allegations against Juneau. Accordingly, I recommend Defendant Jerry Juneau be dismissed from this lawsuit.
(1) Allegations
In his denial of medical care claim, Plaintiff alleges that prior to his incarceration he was under the care of specialists and had underwent an “array of surgeries.” (ECF No 19 at 12). Plaintiff indicates he was under the care of Dr. Lawrence Danna due to fractures of his nose and orbital sockets. Id. Plaintiff alleges he developed a deviated septum which caused breathing issues, pain, and discomfort. Id. When at UCJ, Plaintiff asserts he requested continued treatment from Dr. Danna from Nurse Rice and Captain Mitcham. Id. However, no care was given. Id. When he was denied access to the kiosk, Plaintiff indicates he was refused access to paper sick call request forms by Captain Mitcham, Lieutenant Kugler, and Nurse Rice. He alleges this in effect denied him access to medical care.[5] Plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial