LEE
v.
CHARLOTTE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A complaint must comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10, and supervisory officials are not liable under § 1983 for the acts of their subordinates unless they personally participated in the harm.
Plaintiff filed a handwritten complaint that did not comply with federal pleading rules and named supervisory officials without alleging their persona…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Plaintiff Daniel T. Lee's handwritten complaint (Doc. 1). The complaint does not comply with Rules of Federal Procedure 8 and 10. Rule 8 requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”And Rule 10 requires a party to “state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” This rule is important. It enables defendants to respond to each factual claim, which alerts the Court and the parties to the factual claims in dispute. Lee's complaint presents an unbroken narrative describing the use of force by Officer Strickland. This narrative structure does not give the defendants a fair opportunity to respond to each of Lee's factual claims.
There is another problem with Lee's complaint. It appears Lee included three defendants solely due to their supervisory roles. Lee does not allege that Florida Department of Corrections Secretary Ricky Dixon, Warden Pane, or Captain Gorman participated in a violation of his constitutional rights. It is well settled in the Eleventh Circuit that supervisory officials are not liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the acts of their subordinates. Keith v. DeKalb Cnty., Ga., 749 F. 3d 1034, 1047 (11th Cir. 2014). Lee may only sue officials who personally contributed to a constitutional harm.
For these reasons, the Court will dismiss Lee's complaint and allow him to amend on the attached civil-rights complaint form. The amended complaint must comply with Rules 8 and 10 and include as defendants only those individuals whose conduct harmed Lee.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
Plaintiff Daniel T. Lee's handwritten complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to send Lee a civil-rights complaint form with this order. Lee may file an amended complaint on the form (with additional pages if needed) by April 24, 2025. Otherwise, the Court will enter judgment and dismiss this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on April 3, 2025.
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SA: FTMP-1 Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nadine Keith for the Estate of Godfrey Cook v. DeKALB Cnty., 749 F.3d 1034 (11th Cir. 2014)