Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

THOMAS v. LEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, 2:12-cv-15-FtM-29DNF. (2012)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20120612721 Visitors: 20
Filed: Jun. 11, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 11, 2012
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JOHN E. STELLE, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on defendant Lee County Sheriff's Office's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #4) filed on January 18, 2012. No response has been filed and the time to respond has expired. Plaintiff has named Lee County Sheriff's Office as a defendant. Defendant Lee County Sheriff's Office seeks dismissal as it is not a legal entity capable of being sued. "[P]olice departments are not usually considered legal entities subject to suit,
More

OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN E. STELLE, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on defendant Lee County Sheriff's Office's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #4) filed on January 18, 2012. No response has been filed and the time to respond has expired.

Plaintiff has named Lee County Sheriff's Office as a defendant. Defendant Lee County Sheriff's Office seeks dismissal as it is not a legal entity capable of being sued. "[P]olice departments are not usually considered legal entities subject to suit, but capacity to sue or be sued shall be determined by the law of the state in which the district court is held." Williams v. Miami-Dade Police Dep't, 297 F. App'x 941, 945 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992)) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Under Florida law, police departments are not legal entities amenable to suit. See, e.g., Williams, 297 F. App'x at 945 (citing Masson v. Miami-Dade County, 738 So.2d 431, 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)); Fla. City Police Dep't v. Corcoran, 661 So.2d 409, 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)). Thus, as defendant Lee County Sheriff's Office does not have the capacity to be sued under Florida law, its motion to dismiss shall be granted and it shall be dismissed from the case.

The Court also notes that plaintiff purports to name Betty Scruggs as a defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) states in pertinent part that "[t]he title of the complaint must name all the parties." "[A] party that is not named in the caption of [a] complaint is not a party to the action." Thompson v. Sarasota Cnty. Police Dep't, No. 8:09-cv-575-T-30TBM, 2009 WL 1850314, at *5 (M.D. Fla. June 26, 2009) (quoting Jones v. Parmley, No. 5:98-CV-374 FJS/GHL, 2005 WL 928666, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2005)). Because Betty Scruggs is not named in the title of the Complaint, she is not a defendant in this action.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

1. Defendant Lee County Sheriff's Office's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #4) is GRANTED and the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice as to Lee County Sheriff's Office.

2. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an "Amended Complaint" within TWENTY ONE (21) DAYS of the date of this Order. Failure to file an Amended Complaint will result in the case being closed without further notice to plaintiff.

DONE AND ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer