Summary
In this unpublished Tenth Circuit opinion, a pro se pretrial detainee sued Jefferson County Detention and the Sheriff's Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to protect after an inmate attack. The appellate court affirmed dismissal as legally frivolous, holding that neither a detention facility nor a sheriff's department is a suable entity under § 1983, and that the complaint failed to allege a county policy or custom as required for Monell liability. The court also addressed procedural issues arising from the plaintiff's homelessness, noting that any request for relief from the judgment must be pursued in the district court via a Rule 60(b) motion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred in dismissing the complaint as legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
- Whether Stone's homelessness excused his failure to respond to the court's orders and provides grounds for relief.
Holdings
- The district court did not err because the defendants named—the Jefferson County Detention Facility and the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department—are not suable entities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and even if the complaint were construed as against Jefferson County, it fails to allege a county policy or custom as required by Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
Key quotations
“This court has adopted a firm waiver rule which provides that a litigant’s failure to file timely objections to a magistrate’s [report and recommendation] waives appellate review of both factual and legal determinations.” (at 3)
“the defendants named in Mr. Stone’s complaint—the Jefferson County Detention Facility and the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department— are not suable entities under § 1983.” (at 4)
“And even if we construe the complaint to assert claims against Jefferson County itself, Mr. Stone fails to allege that any county policy or custom caused his injuries and therefore fails to satisfy the requirements for holding the county liable.” (at 4)
“pro se litigants are to be given reasonable opportunity to remedy the defects in their pleadings.” (at 4)
“It is obviously not the function of the appellate court to try the facts or substitute for the trial court in the determination of factual issues.” (at 5)
Factual background
Stone was a pretrial detainee at the Jefferson County Detention Facility. In February 2020, he was attacked by an inmate from another module, causing serious injuries requiring hospitalization. He alleged that the facility and sheriff's department provided inadequate supervision and that deputies failed to separate the scuffle promptly. He also claimed that an active keep separate order was in the database. Stone was released from detention shortly after and became homeless, unable to receive mail.
Procedural history
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed Stone's pro se § 1983 complaint as legally frivolous. The magistrate judge issued an order giving Stone 30 days to amend, but the order was returned undeliverable. Stone did not file an amended complaint or objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district court adopted the recommendation and dismissed the action. Stone appealed.
Remand instructions
None