Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00037/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00037-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ERNEST A. ADKINS, #189 166, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-37-TMH 

) [WO]

ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ) 

CORRECTIONS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Kilby Correctional Facility located in Mt.

Meigs, Alabama, files this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that rights, privileges, or immunities

afforded him under the Constitution or laws of the United States were abridged by the named 

Defendants. Plaintiff names as defendants the Alabama Department of Corrections, Warden

Frank Albright, Alabama Correctional Industries, Andy Farquhar, the Kilby Print Shop, and

David Freeman. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that dismissal of

Plaintiff's claims against the Alabama Department of Corrections, Alabama Correctional

Industries, and the KilbyPrint Shop prior to service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B).1

 A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint 1

screened in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening procedure

requires the court to dismiss a prisoner’s civil action prior to service of process if it determines that the

complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks

monetary damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

Case 2:13-cv-00037-WHA-CSC Document 15 Filed 04/03/13 Page 1 of 3
I. DISCUSSION 

The Alabama Department of Corrections and Alabama Correctional Industries,

which includes the graphics and print shop at the KilbyCorrectional Facility, are not subject

to suit or liability under § 1983. The Eleventh Amendment bars suit directly against a state

or its agencies, regardless of the nature of relief sought. Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v.

Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984). In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that Plaintiff's

claims against the Alabama Department of Corrections, Alabama Correctional Industries,

and the Kilby Print Shop are due to be dismissed. Id. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

II. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. Plaintiff's claims against the Alabama Department of Corrections, Alabama

Correctional Industries, and the Kilby Print Shop be DISMISSED with prejudice prior to

service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B);

2. The Alabama Department of Corrections, Alabama Correctional Industries, and

the Kilby Print Shop be DISMISSED as parties to the complaint; and 

3. This case with respect to the remaining defendants be referred back to the

undersigned for additional proceedings. 

 It is further

ORDERED that on or before April 17, 2013, Plaintiff may file an objection to the 

2

Case 2:13-cv-00037-WHA-CSC Document 15 Filed 04/03/13 Page 2 of 3
Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or

general objections will not be considered by the District Court. Plaintiff is advised that this

Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations in

the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar Plaintiff from a de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual

findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain

error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein th

v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of

th

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the th

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done this 3 day of April, 2013. rd

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:13-cv-00037-WHA-CSC Document 15 Filed 04/03/13 Page 3 of 3