HOWARD v. ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
LEVARION DEWAYNE HOWARD,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No.: 3:25cv1654/AW/ZCB
ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this
case by filing a civil rights complaint. 	(Doc. 1). 	The Court informed
Plaintiff of deficiencies in his previous two complaints and ordered him
to file an amended complaint. 	Plaintiff has now filed a second amended
complaint. (Doc. 13).
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is
required to review the second amended 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
Case 3:25-cv-01654-AW-ZCB Document 14 Filed 04/13/26 Page 1 of 6

2
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).1
I. 	Plaintiff’s Allegations
Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee who is housed at the Escambia
County Jail. (Doc. 13 at 4). 	In his second amended complaint, Plaintiff
asserts that he has had “leakage coming from [his] rectum” and has been
repeatedly denied medical attention. 	(Id. at 5-6). He brings state law
claims for medical negligence and medical malpractice, as well as a
§ 1983 claim alleging an Eighth Amendment violation. (Id. at 7). 	He
seeks $20.5 million in damages. (Id.).
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
1 As previously mentioned, Plaintiff was given an opportunity to amend
his complaint when prior versions were found deficient. 	(Docs. 9, 12).
Although Plaintiff has filed a second amended complaint, it is also
deficient. Thus, dismissal is warranted. See Corsello v. Lincare, Inc., 428
F.3d 1008, 1014 (11th Cir. 2005) (stating that “[o]rdinarily, a party must
be given at least one opportunity to amend before the district court
dismisses the complaint”).
Case 3:25-cv-01654-AW-ZCB Document 14 Filed 04/13/26 Page 2 of 6

3
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).
III. 	Discussion
A. Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the Escambia County
Board of Commissioners.
Plaintiff cannot prevail on his federal claim for damages against a
municipal entity—like the Escambia County Board of Commissioners—
unless Plaintiff identifies a particular municipal “policy” or “custom,” and
plausibly alleges “a direct causal link between” the policy or custom and
the constitutional injury. 	Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397,
403 (1997); Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). To do
so, “a plaintiff must establish (1) that his constitutional rights were
violated; (2) that the municipal office had a custom or policy that
constituted deliberate indifference to that constitutional right; and (3)
that the policy or custom caused the violation.” 	Cunningham v. Cobb
Cnty., 141 F.4th 1201, 1213 (11th Cir. 2025) (cleaned up).
Case 3:25-cv-01654-AW-ZCB Document 14 Filed 04/13/26 Page 3 of 6

4
Even 	assuming 	arguendo 	that 	Plaintiff 	plausibly 	alleged 	a
constitutional violation, Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged a policy or
custom of the Escambia County Board of Commissioners that caused his
injuries.2 	Plaintiff claims that the Board of Commissioners violated the
Eighth Amendment by not providing adequate medical care. (Doc. 13 at
5). 	Plaintiff alleges that he filed multiple grievances but was told to fill
out sick calls. Plaintiff claims he submitted sick calls and has spent many
months trying to get his condition adequately treated.
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, however, makes no reference
to a policy or custom of the Escambia County Board of Commissioners
that has caused his alleged constitutional injury. 	For this reason,
Plaintiff has not stated a plausible claim against the Escambia County
Board of Commissioners.
B. The 	Court 	should 	refuse 	to 	exercise 	supplemental
jurisdiction on Plaintiff’s state law claims.
A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over state law claims when it has “dismissed all claims over which it has
2 Plaintiff was previously told he must plead that his injuries were the
result of a custom or policy by Defendant Escambia County Board of
Commissioners when a previous complaint was found deficient. (Doc. 12
at 7-8).
Case 3:25-cv-01654-AW-ZCB Document 14 Filed 04/13/26 Page 4 of 6

5
original jurisdiction.” 	28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). 	The Court should decline
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims for
medical negligence and medical malpractice if his Eighth Amendment
claim is dismissed as recommended. 	This case is in its infancy, and the
Court believes the normal practice of declining supplemental jurisdiction
after dismissal of the federal claims should be followed here. 	See Royal
Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 31-32 (2025) (“[I]f the
district 	court 	has 	dismissed 	all 	claims 	over 	which 	it 	has 	original
jurisdiction . . . supplemental jurisdiction persists, [but] the district court
need not exercise it: 	Instead, the court may (and indeed, ordinarily
should) kick the case to state court.”).
IV. 	Conclusion
For the reasons above, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	Plaintiff’s 	second 	amended 	complaint 	(Doc. 	13) 	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 3:25-cv-01654-AW-ZCB Document 14 Filed 04/13/26 Page 5 of 6

6
2. 	Supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims be
declined and such claims DISMISSED without prejudice
to Plaintiff pursuing them in state court.
3. 	The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment accordingly
and close the case.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 13th 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 3:25-cv-01654-AW-ZCB Document 14 Filed 04/13/26 Page 6 of 6