Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190724_0001868.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-10-14 22:56:29
Document Index: 452929176

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 636', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

FindACase™ | Perritt v. J. Reuben Long Detention Center
Perritt v. J. Reuben Long Detention Center
J. Reuben Long Detention Center; Mediko, Defendants.
The plaintiff, Micheal Wayne Perritt, a self-represented state pretrial detainee, brings this civil rights action. The Complaint has been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). Having reviewed the Complaint in accordance with applicable law, the court finds this action is subject to summary dismissal if Plaintiff does not amend the Complaint to cure the deficiencies identified herein.
Plaintiff, an inmate in the J. Reuben Long Detention Center in Conway, South Carolina, indicates that he slipped and injured a bone in his left foot in January 2019. (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 2, 6-7.) He claims that despite his numerous requests for medical attention, the jail medical department run by Mediko did not x-ray his foot until six to seven weeks after the fall. (Id. at 8.) The medical staff determined that Plaintiff's bone was cracked, but Plaintiff was later taken to an outside doctor who determined that the bone was broken. (Id.) The outside doctor also determined that because the break went untreated, it had already started to heal, causing permanent damage. (Id.) Plaintiff now brings this action for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff names the J. Reuben Long Detention Center and Mediko as defendants in the caption of the Complaint. (Id. at 1.) However, Plaintiff also lists “Mediko (Nurses)” as a named defendant in the body of the Complaint. (Id. at 3.)
However, Defendant J. Reuben Long Detention Center is not a “person” amenable to suit under § 1983 because it is an inanimate facility and not a person. It is well-settled that only “persons” may act under color of state law; therefore, a defendant in a § 1983 action must qualify as a “person.” See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978) (noting that for purposes of § 1983 a “person” includes individuals and “bodies politic and corporate”). Courts have held that inanimate objects such as buildings, facilities, and grounds are not “persons” and do not act under color of state law. See Nelson v. Lexington Cty. Det. Ctr., C/A No. 8:10-2988-JMC, 2011 WL 2066551, at *1 (D.S.C. May 26, 2011) (finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the Lexington County Detention Center, “as a building and not a person, is amenable to suit under § 1983”); see also Brooks v. Pembroke City Jail, 722 F.Supp. 1294, 1301 (E.D. N.C. 1989) (“Claims under § 1983 are directed at ‘persons' and the jail is not a person amenable to suit.”). Because the J. Reuben Long Detention Center is not an individual or corporate body amenable to suit under § 1983, this defendant is subject to summary dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.[1]
Also, to the extent Plaintiff intends to name the company Mediko as a defendant, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim against Mediko upon which relief can be granted. Usually, a private company that provides medical services to a publicly-run prison or jail is a state actor under § 1983. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 54 (1988) (holding a physician employed by a state to provide medical services to state prison inmates was a state actor for § 1983 purposes when he treated prisoners' injuries). But, to hold a private company (rather than an individual who works for that company) liable under § 1983, a Plaintiff must plead and show that an official policy or custom of the company caused the alleged deprivation of a federal right. See Austin v. Paramount Parks, Inc., 195 F.3d 715, 728 (4th Cir. 1999) (“[A] private corporation is liable under § 1983 only when an official policy or custom of the corporation causes the alleged deprivation of federal rights.”). Here, Plaintiff provides no facts plausibly showing that the injury to his foot from the purported lack of adequate medical treatment was caused by an official policy or custom of Mediko. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Accordingly, Plaintiffs claim against Mediko as currently pled is subject to summary dismissal.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Consequently, Plaintiffs Complaint is subject to summary dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. &sect; 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) and &sect; 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff is hereby granted twenty-one (21) days from the date this order is entered (plus three days for mail time) to file an amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) that corrects the deficiencies identified above.[2] If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint ...