BURNS v. ESCAMBIA COUNTY JAIL

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
VESTIN LEE BURNS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No.: 3:26cv3366/TKW/ZCB
ESCAMBIA COUNTY JAIL,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this
case by filing a civil rights complaint. 	(Doc. 1). 	Because Plaintiff is
proceeding 	in 	forma 	pauperis, 	the 	Court 	is 	required 	to 	review 	the
complaint to determine whether this action is frivolous, malicious, fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B);
see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 	Having reviewed the complaint, the Court
believes dismissal is warranted for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1). 	Given the deficiencies in the complaint, providing an
opportunity to amend would be futile.
Case 3:26-cv-03366-TKW-ZCB Document 5 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 6

2
I. 	Background
Plaintiff is a detainee at the Escambia County Jail. 	(Doc. 1 at 4).
Plaintiff has sued the Escambia County Jail arguing the jail has “refused
as well as denied” him the “right to an education.” (Id. at 5). Specifically,
Plaintiff claims the jail denied his requests to participate in the GED
program. (Id.). Plaintiff left blank the “Statement of Claims” and “Relief
Requested” sections of the complaint form. (Id. at 7).
II. 	Statutory Screening Standard
To survive dismissal at the screening phase, “a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 	The plausibility standard is
met only where the facts alleged enable “the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 	Id.
Plausibility means “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully.” 	Id. 	“Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely
consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between
possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” 	Id. (cleaned up).
Case 3:26-cv-03366-TKW-ZCB Document 5 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 6

3
III. 	Discussion
A. The Escambia County Jail is not subject to suit under § 1983.
Plaintiff names the Escambia County Jail as the sole Defendant.
The capacity to be sued in federal court is governed by the law of the state
where the district court is located. 	Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214
(11th Cir. 1992). 	Under Florida law, there are constitutionally created
political 	subdivisions 	called 	counties 	and 	separately 	created
constitutional officers. Fla. Const. Art. VIII, §§ 1(a) and (d). Florida law
does not provide, either constitutionally or statutorily, for a county jail
as a separate legal entity, an agency of the county, or a corporate entity.
Therefore, a county jail is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983. 	See
Farmer v. Escambia Cnty. Jail, No. 3:21cv3120, 2022 WL 1176754, at *2
(N.D. Fla. Mar. 17, 2022) (dismissing case against the Escambia County
Jail because it is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983); see also
Sampson v. Rosario, No. 6:24cv214, 2024 WL 982516, at *3 (M.D. Fla.
Mar. 1, 2024) (“A county jail is not a viable defendant under section
1983.”).
Case 3:26-cv-03366-TKW-ZCB Document 5 Filed 04/07/26 Page 3 of 6

4
B. Plaintiff fails to state a § 1983 claim.
“A successful section 1983 action requires a showing that the
conduct complained of (1) was committed by a person acting under color
of state law and (2) deprived the complainant of rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”
Harvey v. Harvey, 949 F.2d 1127, 1130 (11th Cir. 1992). Here, Plaintiff’s
claim fails at the second step. Plaintiff claims the jail violated his rights
by denying his participation in the GED program. 	But participation in
the GED program is not a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States. 	See Williams v. Albemarle-
Charlottesville Reg’l Jail, No. 7:24cv153, 2024 WL 1977187, at *1 (W.D.
Va. 	May 	3, 	2024) 	(stating 	that 	“no 	one 	has 	violated 	[plaintiff’s]
constitutional rights simply by not permitting him to take GED classes”);
see also Slonaker v. Jividin, No. 2:21cv36, 2022 WL 509612, at *4 (S.D.W.
Va. Jan. 19, 2022), adopted by 2022 WL 509335 (“Prisoners have no
constitutional 	right 	to 	. 	. 	. 	placement 	in 	educational 	programs.”);
Thompkins v. Hayes, No. 2:06cv1106, 2007 WL 128797, at *2 (M.D. Ala.
Jan. 	12, 	2007) 	(“The 	law 	is 	well 	settled 	that 	an 	inmate 	has 	no
constitutionally protected interest in trade school or other educational
Case 3:26-cv-03366-TKW-ZCB Document 5 Filed 04/07/26 Page 4 of 6

5
program as the failure to place an inmate in any such program does not
impose atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the
ordinary incidents of prison life.”). 	Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to
state a plausible § 1983 claim involving the jail’s failure to place him in
a GED program.
C. Allowing Plaintiff an opportunity to amend would be futile.
Given 	the 	issues 	with 	Plaintiff’s 	complaint 	identified 	above,
allowing Plaintiff an opportunity to amend would be futile. 	Under no
circumstances could Plaintiff state a plausible claim under § 1983 against
the Escambia County Jail (or any officer thereof) for failure to allow his
participation in the GED program. 	See Williams, 2024 WL 1977187, at
*2 (dismissing under §1915A(b)(1) when plaintiff alleged jail officials
denied him the right to attend educational classes).
IV. 	Conclusion
For the reasons above, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
Case 3:26-cv-03366-TKW-ZCB Document 5 Filed 04/07/26 Page 5 of 6

6
2. 	The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 7th day of April 2026.
/s/
Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice to the Parties
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must
be 	filed 	within 	fourteen 	days 	of 	the 	date 	of 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may 	appear 	on 	the
electronic 	docket 	is 	for 	the 	court’s 	internal 	use 	only 	and 	does 	not
control. 	An objecting party must serve a copy of the objections on all
other parties. 	A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s
findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation
waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28
U.S.C. § 636.
Case 3:26-cv-03366-TKW-ZCB Document 5 Filed 04/07/26 Page 6 of 6