LLOYD v. MCCLOUD et al

Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
MICHAEL O LLOYD,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:25-cv-304-AW/MJF
MCCLOUD, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This court has preliminarily screened Plaintiff’s second amended
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. Because
Plaintiff seeks only monetary relief from Defendants that are immune
from such relief, the District Court should dismiss this civil action.
B ACKGROUND
A. 	Plaintiff’s Initial Complaint
On October 4, 2025, Plaintiff commenced this civil action against
employees of the Florida Department of Corrections (“FDC”) in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Doc. 1
at 	1. Plaintiff sued each Defendant in their individual and official
capacities. Id. at 2. Because venue was not proper in the Southern
Case 5:25-cv-00304-AW-MJF Document 19 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 6

Page 2 of 6
District, on October 17, 2025, a district judge transferred this civil action
to the Northern District of Florida. Doc. 4.
B. 	The First Order to Amend the Complaint
The undersigned conducted the requisite screening of Plaintiff’s
complaint. Because the complaint was not on the form approved for use
by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida,
on October 24, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint on the court approved form. Doc. 7.
C. 	Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
On November 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint.
Doc. 8. Plaintiff named three Defendants: Captain McCloud, Sergeant
Corey Bittle, and Officer Whitehurst. Doc. 8 at 1–3. Plaintiff sued
McCloud in his official capacity only. Id. at 2. Plaintiff sued Whitehurst
and Bittle in their individual and official capacities. Id. at 3. Plaintiff
asserted 	that 	Defendants 	used 	excessive 	force 	against 	Plaintiff 	in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 8. For relief, Plaintiff sought
compensatory and punitive damages. Id.
Case 5:25-cv-00304-AW-MJF Document 19 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 6

Page 3 of 6
D. 	The Second Order to Amend the Complaint
The undersigned conducted the requisite screening of Plaintiff’s
first amended complaint. Because Plaintiff had failed to state a plausible
official-capacity 	claim 	against 	Defendants, 	the 	undersigned 	ordered
Plaintiff 	to 	file 	an 	amended 	complaint. 	Doc. 	12. 	Specifically, 	the
undersigned explained to Plaintiff that Florida’s sovereign immunity
barred Plaintiff’s claims for damages against the Defendants in their
official capacities. Id. at 2–3.
E. 	Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint
On March 1, 2026, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Doc.
17. In that complaint, Plaintiff elects to pursue only official-capacity
claims against Bittle, McCloud, and Whitehurst. Id. at 2–3. Plaintiff
seeks $50,000 from each Defendant. Id. at 10, 12. Plaintiff does not
request any prospective relief. Id.
STANDARD
The 	District 	Court 	is required to 	review Plaintiff’s 	complaint,
identify cognizable claims and dismiss the complaint, or any portion
thereof, if the complaint “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from
Case 5:25-cv-00304-AW-MJF Document 19 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 6

Page 4 of 6
a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)–(b);
see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (applying the same standard to in forma
pauperis proceedings). Determining whether a complaint states a claim
upon which relief can be granted is governed by the standard set forth in
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6); Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1485 (11th Cir. 1997). To
survive dismissal, “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) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
D ISCUSSION
A claim against an individual government employee in his official
capacity is equivalent to a claim against the government entity that
employs the individual. McMillian v. Monroe Cnty., 520 U.S. 781, 785 n.2
(1997); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165–66 (1985). In other words,
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants—employees of the FDC acting in
their official capacities—are asserted against the FDC. The FDC, a state
agency, is “the equivalent of the State of Florida for the Eleventh
Case 5:25-cv-00304-AW-MJF Document 19 Filed 03/12/26 Page 4 of 6

Page 5 of 6
Amendment purposes.” Walden v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 975 F. Supp. 1330,
1331 (N.D. Fla. 1996).
The Eleventh Amendment recognizes that the States may assert
sovereign immunity that would bar suits by an individual against a
State, its agencies, and its employees in their official capacity, unless
Congress has abrogated the State’s sovereign immunity, or the State has
consented to the lawsuit. See Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 16–18 (1890);
Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
Congress has not abrogated the States’ sovereign immunity in
actions for damages under section 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 67–68 (1989). Furthermore, Florida has not waived
its immunity from suit. See Zatler v. Wainwright, 802 F.2d 397, 400 (11th
Cir. 1986).
Plaintiff seeks only damages from Defendants in their official
capacities. Doc. 1 at 2–3, 10, 12. Sovereign immunity, therefore, bars this
civil action. Accordingly, the District Court should dismiss this action.
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reason 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
Case 5:25-cv-00304-AW-MJF Document 19 Filed 03/12/26 Page 5 of 6

Page 6 of 6
1. 	DISMISS this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)
and 1915A; and
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida on this 12th day of March 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge 	to 	address 	preliminary 	matters 	and to 	make
recommendations regarding dispositive matters. See
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed R.
Civ. P. 72(b). Objections to these proposed findings and
recommendations must be filed within fourteen days of
the 	date 	of 	the 	report 	and 	recommendation. 	An
objecting party must serve a copy of its objections
upon 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 5:25-cv-00304-AW-MJF Document 19 Filed 03/12/26 Page 6 of 6