Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ANTHONY SIKORA,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv164-SPM/WCS

LEON COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff is detained at the Leon County Jail and is proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. Plaintiff has been granted leave to

proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order entered this day. 

Plaintiff appears to have named four Defendants in this case: the Leon County

Jail, the State of Florida, Sheriff Larry Campbell, and Governor Charlie Crist. Doc. 1., p.

1. However, it is also possible that Plaintiff intended to only name two of those

Defendants because on page one of the complaint form he lists the first two

Defendants, and on page two of the complaint form, he lists the second two

Defendants. At any rate, it is clear that only two of those four Defendants may be
Page 2 of 3

properly sued. A correctional facility or the jail is not a proper Defendant in a case

brought under § 1983. 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. 

Mayes v. Elrod, 470 F.Supp. 1188, 1192 (N.D.Ill. 1979). The capacity of a

governmental corporation to be sued in federal Court is governed by the law of the state

in which the District court is located. Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir.

1992). Florida law does not recognize a jail facility as a legal entity separate and apart

from the Sheriff charged with its operation and control. Pursuant to Chapter 30 of the

Florida Statutes, Florida Sheriffs of their respective counties are subject to suit and may

be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ortega v. Schramm, 922 F.2d 684, 694 (11th Cir.

1991). Thus, the Jail must be dismissed as a Defendant. 

Additionally, a suit against the State of Florida is not possible pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 either because the state, state agencies, and state officials acting in

official capacity are not "persons" as intended by § 1983. Will v. Michigan Department

of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S. Ct. 2304, 2308-2311, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). 

Furthermore, the State of Florida is immune from suit in this court by force of the

Eleventh Amendment. Carr v. City of Florence, Alabama, 916 F.2d 1521, 1524 (11th

Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the State of Florida must be dismissed as a Defendant. 

Plaintiff's claim in this case is that the jail uses plastic trays to serve food. 

Plaintiff is of the opinion that plastic food trays cannot be satisfactorily cleaned because,

he surmises, the plastic would melt with water sufficiently hot to properly sterilize the

trays. Doc. 1, p. 5. He also alleges that the trays cannot be cleaned properly because

they have deep cracks. These conclusory claims are not sufficient to show that

Case No. 4:10cv164-SPM/WCS
Page 3 of 3

Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights have been violated. Reusable plastic trays and

utensils are commonly used to serve food and are easily cleaned in a dish washer. 

While it may be preferable to use trays without cracks, Plaintiff has not claimed that he

has been harmed by the plastic trays nor has he alleged that the trays were given to

him in unsanitary condition. Plaintiff's claim is frivolous and this case should be

summarily dismissed.

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's

complaint, doc. 1, be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and that the order adopting this report and

recommendation direct the Clerk of Court to note on the docket that this cause was

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on May 12, 2010.

 s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days

after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the

scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:10cv164-SPM/WCS