Source: http://mt.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180604_0001550.DMT.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:19:55+00:00

Document:
CASCADE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, PETER MOLNER, DETENTION CENTER MEDICAL STAFF, and SGT. GRUBB, Defendants.
Plaintiff Dylan Klein, a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and without counsel, has filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 12.) The Court has considered whether Mr. Klein's Amended Complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks solely monetary relief from a defendant who is immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(b). It has also considered whether Mr. Klein has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Dismissal is not appropriate at this time. Defendants Grubb and Molner must respond to the Amended Complaint. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) (while Defendants may occasionally be permitted to “waive the right to reply to any action brought by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility under section 1983, ” once the Court has conducted its sua sponte screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), and thus, has made a preliminary determination based on the face on the pleading alone that plaintiff has a “reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits, ” Defendant is required to respond).
As set forth in the Court's prior Order, the Cascade County Detention Center is merely a building, it is not a person or legally created entity capable of being sued. In Montana, a detention center is defined as “a facility established and maintained by an appropriate entity for the purpose of confining arrested persons or persons sentenced to the detention center.” Mont.Code Ann. § 7-32-2120. A detention facility is merely a building that cannot be sued. Barnes v. Cascade County Detention Center, 2008 WL 5412448 (D.Mont. 2008). Further, as Mr. Klein was advised, the Amended Complaint replaces the original complaint, and the original complaint no longer serves a function in the case. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Mr. Klein did not name the Detention Center in his Amended Complaint. As such, the Cascade County Detention Center should be dismissed.
Similarly, Mr. Klein has again identified unnamed individuals as Defendants. Specifically, he alleges “Nurse 1, Nurse 2, and Grievance officer ignored my requests for healthcare.” (Doc. 12 at 6.) As he was advised in the Court's prior Order (Doc. 11), when a plaintiff is not able to name one or more defendants when he files his complaint, he must provide sufficient information to enable the court and his opponents to know whom he is trying to identify. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 390 n. 2 (1971); Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1162 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1999). Mr. Klein has still not provided sufficient information to enable the court or his opponents to know whom he is trying to identify. Once a scheduling order is issued in this case, Mr. Klein may conduct discovery in an attempt to identify these individuals. Should he do so, he may file a second amended complaint within the time that will be set in the scheduling order to file amended pleadings.
1. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d), the Court will request Defendants Grubb and Molner to waive service of summons of the Amended Complaint by executing, or having counsel execute, the Waiver of Service of Summons. The Waiver must be returned to the Court within 30 days of the entry date of this Order as reflected on the Notice of Electronic Filing. If Defendants Grubb and Molner choose to return the Waiver of Service of Summons, their answer or appropriate motion will be due within 60 days of the entry date of this Order as reflected on the Notice of Electronic Filing, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(1)(B). See also 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2).

References: § 1997
 § 1997
 § 1915
 § 1915
 § 7
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1997