Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

LEIKEISHA L. LEMON,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:11cv214-SPM/WCS

CHATTAHOOCHEE SECURITY 

GUARDS, and FRANKLIN 

COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis, doc. 2, and a

complaint, doc. 1. Ruling was deferred on Plaintiff's original in forma pauperis motion

and she was directed to file an amended motion providing additional information. Doc.

7. Plaintiff has now complied and filed the amended motion. Doc. 9. 

Plaintiff indicates she is currently unemployed, having last worked only briefly in

2001. Doc. 9. Plaintiff receives only Social Security income. Good cause having been

shown, the motion is granted. The Clerk of Court shall file the complaint without

requiring payment of the filing fee.

Case 4:11-cv-00214-RS-WCS Document 12 Filed 06/03/11 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Plaintiff also submitted an amended complaint, doc. 8. The Defendants named

in this case are the: (1) Jailhouse, City of Franklin County Police Department in

Apallachicola, Florida; (2) Security Guard DK name in Chattahoochee, Florida; and (3)

Jeffrey Lockley, a bondsman whose address is not provided, but who is in Apalachicola.

Doc. 8. A Jailhouse cannot be named as a Defendant as such an entity is not a person

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Moreover, as Plaintiff was previously advised, a Police

Department exists for a city, like Apalachicola. A county, like Franklin County, has a

Sheriff's Department. Plaintiff continues to confuse these two in naming the

Defendants. It is not necessary, however, for Plaintiff to correctly identify which law

enforcement entity was involved because Plaintiff acknowledges the events of her case

took place in 2003. Doc. 8, p. 3. The claims are time barred by the four-year statute of

limitations. Thus, there is no need to try to obtain further clarification.

Furthermore, Plaintiff has ailed to allege the violation of a Constitutional right. 

She contends that she had two altercations and was arrested and committed under the

Baker Act. Plaintiff spent six months in jail and claims they treated her horribly. Plaintiff

does not provide any factual allegations demonstrating that her Constitutional rights

were violated in her detention and fails to provide any specific facts showing how she

was treated. A general claim that Plaintiff was treated "horribly" is too vague to

demonstrate a constitutional claim.

Plaintiff cannot challenge the legality of her detention in jail as that is a habeas

claim. Such claims cannot proceed in a civil rights action. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994).

Case No. 4:11cv214-SPM/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00214-RS-WCS Document 12 Filed 06/03/11 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, doc. 9, is GRANTED.

2. Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel, doc. 10, is DENIED.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

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

amended complaint, doc. 8, be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and because the claims are barred

by the statute of limitations, 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 June 3, 2011.

 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. 4:11cv214-SPM/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00214-RS-WCS Document 12 Filed 06/03/11 Page 3 of 3