ERIN L. SETSER, Magistrate Judge.
This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to the terms of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis.
At the time he filed this action, Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Benton County Detention Center (BCDC). The case is before me on the motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) filed by the Separate Defendant Sheriff Kelly Cradduck. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion to dismiss.
While he was incarcerated at the BCDC, the Plaintiff contends his constitutional rights were violated. (Doc. 1). However, only his claims against Separate Defendant Sheriff Cradduck are at issue in this motion.
Plaintiff states that the jail was cited for "unsanitary infractions" involving the kitchen. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the dishwasher was broken causing the need for the trays to be washed by hand, which allowed germs to be spread, as the trays were not properly sanitized. Plaintiff also alleges that the sanitizer bottle was broken, and that Separate Defendant Caroline Ellis of CBM Managed Services, "did not know what [s]he was doing." Plaintiff did not present facts relating to his complaint through the county prisoner grievance procedure.
Rule 8(a) contains the general pleading rules and requires a complaint to present "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). "In order to meet this standard, and survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), `a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'"
"The plausibility standard requires a plaintiff to show at the pleading stage that success on the merits is more than a `sheer possibility.'"
Sheriff Cradduck maintains the complaint should be dismissed for the following reasons: 1) there is no plausible official capacity claim; and 2) Plaintiff made no allegations against Sheriff Cradduck in the complaint.
Plaintiff asserts a claim against Sheriff Cradduck in his official capacity. Under § 1983, a defendant may be sued in either his individual capacity, or in his official capacity, or claims may be stated against a defendant in both his individual and his official capacities. In
As noted above, to hold a governmental entity liable the action must have been pursuant to official governmental policy or custom that caused the constitutional injury.
Plaintiff also brought an individual capacity claim against Sheriff Cradduck. With respect to Plaintiff's allegations regarding the "unsanitary infractions" in the BCDC kitchen, there is no evidence that Sheriff Cradduck had personal involvement with the routine daily activities of the jail kitchen. Without some personal involvement, Sheriff Cradduck cannot be held liable.
For the reasons stated, I recommend that Separate Defendant Cradduck's motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) be granted.