Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

EVANS LEE WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00185-MP-GRJ

ALACHUA COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court has reviewed the Second Amended Complaint and concludes that it 1

is due to be dismissed for failure to state a claim and as frivolous. 

Plaintiff’s previous claims have been vague. Without providing any detail Plaintiff

has alleged in one or two brief sentences that he has seizures and was medically

abused. (Doc. 12, at 5; Doc 15, at 5.) As a result of the lack of factual support for

Plaintiff’s claims, the Court advised Plaintiff twice (Docs. 14 & 17) that he must allege

some detail in the facts underlying his general claim of abuse. The Court also advised

Plaintiff that he must name as defendants the persons at the Alachua County Jail whom

Plaintiff alleges are responsible for the denial of medical care. Plaintiff has ignored the

Court’s directive and again simply named the Alachua County Sheriff’s Department, the

 This is actually the third amended complaint and fourth pleading filed in this 1

cause. Plaintiff initiated the case with a letter on September 10, 2010. (Doc. 1). He

then filed a form complaint on October 20, 2010, which was docketed as a First

Amended Complaint (Doc. 12), and another complaint on November 8, 2010, which

was docketed as another First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 15.) Finally, Plaintiff filed

this “Second” Amended Complaint on December 17, 2010. (Doc. 19).
Page 2 of 3

jail, and “All Staff, “ as the defendants alleging in conclusory fashion that an unspecified

policy “subjected [him] to cruel and unusual punishment.” (Doc. 19, at 5, 7). While

Plaintiff has included some specific dates, such as the date he had a “seizure episode,”

the date he went to the infirmary, the date his blood was drawn, and the date he

requested medications, there is no explanation of the events or any connection

between the dates listed by Plaintiff. Simply put, Plaintiff has failed to include any

information in this brief and cryptic “history” suggesting that he was denied medical

care, and if so, who allegedly denied Plaintiff medical care. As such, while Plaintiff’s

current amended complaint provides slightly more detail than the previous complaints, it

is still grossly insufficient and fails to even come close to stating a claim for relief. 

A court may sua sponte dismiss a case proceeding in forma pauperis if the

complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

The complaint's [f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the

speculative level. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); see also Cobb v.

Florida, 293 Fed. Appx. 708 (11th Cir. 2008) (applying Twombly to a prisoner’s pro se

complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. §1982 and dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1915A). “The Supreme Court's most recent formulation of the pleading specificity

standard is that ‘stating such a claim requires a complaint with enough factual matter

(taken as true) to suggest’ the required element.” Watts v. Florida International

University, 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1965).

This standard simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that

discovery will reveal evidence of the required element. Twombly, at 1965. In reviewing

the dismissal of a complaint under the 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1), this court accepts

Case No: 1:10-cv-00185-MP -GRJ
Page 3 of 3

allegations in the complaint as true, and pro se pleadings are liberally construed. Brown

v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1350 (11th Cir.2004).

Despite several opportunities, Plaintiff has failed to provide any facts supporting

a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. And even though Plaintiff was advised to

do so Plaintiff has not even named any individual defendants. More notably, Plaintiff

has failed to identify any specific injury he has incurred and in this latest pleading fails

to request any specific relief. 

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED: 

That this cause be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim for relief and as

frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §1915A.

At Gainesville, Florida, this 29 day of December, 2010. th

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), 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: 1:10-cv-00185-MP -GRJ