Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_09-cv-01061/USCOURTS-almd-1_09-cv-01061-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARRELL SMEDLEY, )

)

Plaintiff , )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 1:09-cv-1061-MEF

)

OZARK POLICE DEPT., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) this case was referred to the undersigned United

States Magistrate Judge for review and submission of a report with recommended findings

of fact and conclusions of law (Doc. 4, filed November 23, 2009). By Order filed November

24, 2009, the Magistrate Judge granted permission for Darrell Smedley to proceed in forma

pauperis, but stayed further proceedings on his Complaint filed November 17, 2009 pending

amendment and review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1

I. PARTIES AND COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Darrell Smedley (“Smedley” or “Plaintiff”) is a resident of Ozark in Dale

County, Alabama which is located within the Middle District of Alabama. On November 17,

2009, Smedley initiated this action by filing a Complaint and several motions. See Docs. 1-3. 

1 The statute provides, in pertinent part: “[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any

time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal – (i) is frivolous or malicious, (ii) fails

to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant

who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

Page 1 of 6

Case 1:09-cv-01061-MEF-TFM Document 10 Filed 02/05/10 Page 1 of 6
The Court denied Smedley’s motion for production of evidence, but granted his motion to

proceed in forma pauperis. See Docs. 5 and 7. The Court also ordered Smedley to file an

amended complaint because his original complaint failed to identify with specificity what

relief he sought. See Doc. 6. Smedley filed his Amended Complaint on December 14, 2009. 

See Doc. 8.

The gist of Smedley’s allegations - as best can be discerned from verbiage which

lacks clarity, to be charitable - is a complaint that Defendants wrongfully arrested him and

assaulted him during the arrest. Smedley asserts these claims against the Ozark Police

Department and Ozark Police Officer Tripp. He further asserts these actions violated a

number of his constitutional rights and brings these claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983. See

Doc. 8 generally.

II. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

All litigants, pro se or not, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Although the court is required to liberally construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings, the court does

not have “license to serve as de facto counsel for a party. . .or to rewrite an otherwise deficient

pleading in order to sustain an action.” GJR Investments, Inc. v. County of Escambia, Fla.,

132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). A two-step procedure should be

used when processing a complaint filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Procup v. Strickland,

760 F.2d 1107, 1114 (11th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). First, the court should determine

“whether the plaintiff is unable to prepay costs and fees and therefore a pauper under the

statute.” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)). Second, once leave has been granted, the court

Page 2 of 6

Case 1:09-cv-01061-MEF-TFM Document 10 Filed 02/05/10 Page 2 of 6
shall dismiss a case by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis at any time if it determines

that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted. Id.; see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii); see also Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d

1483, 1491 n.1 (11th Cir. 1997) (Lay, J. concurring) (Section 1915(e) applies to all litigants

proceeding in forma pauperis). At any stage of the proceedings, a case is frivolous for the

purpose of § 1915(e)(2)(B) when it appears the plaintiff “has little or no chance of success.” 

Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993) (quoting Harris v. Menendez, 817 F.2d

737, 741 (11th Cir. 1987)). A court may conclude that a case has little or no chance of

success and dismiss the complaint before service of process when it determines from the face

of the complaint that factual allegations are “clearly baseless” or that the legal theories are

“indisputably meritless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1833, 104

L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733,

118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992) (dismissal of claims when “clearly baseless”); Procup, 760 F.2d at

1114 (complaint may be dismissed prior to service of process). Moreover, a claim is clearly

baseless and due dismissal when the allegations are “fanciful,” “fantastic,” and “delusional.” 

Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33, 112 S.Ct. at 1733 (citations omitted). Thus, the court may “spare

the defendant the inconvenience and expense of answering a frivolous complaint.” Woodall

v. Foti, 648 F.2d 268, 271 (5th Cir. 1981).2

2 Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc) (adopting as

binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close

of business on September 30, 1981).

Page 3 of 6

Case 1:09-cv-01061-MEF-TFM Document 10 Filed 02/05/10 Page 3 of 6
The complaint filed by Smedley satisfies the economic eligibility criteria of §

1915(a)(1), and therefore may be filed without prepayment of fees. However, the Court is of

the view, that part of the amended complaint should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant

to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) - (ii). 

A. Ozark Police Department

Smedley brings claims against the Ozark Police Department. Under Alabama law, the

Ozark Police Department is not a legal entity subject to suit or liability. See, e.g., Dean v.

Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992). For this reason, all claims in Smedley’s

Complaint against the Ozark Police Department merit dismissal before service pursuant to §

1915(e)(2)(i)-(ii). 

B. Officer Tripp

At this time, there are sufficient factual allegations that warrant the service of this

action on Ozark Police Officer Tripp. Further, it is clear from the complaint and amended

complaint that the claims asserted against him are in both his official and individual

capacities. This however, does not preclude further review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 should

the Court determine it to be necessary.

III. CONCLUSION

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

(1) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Ozark Police Department be dismissed

without prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

Page 4 of 6

Case 1:09-cv-01061-MEF-TFM Document 10 Filed 02/05/10 Page 4 of 6
1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii).

(2) The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to serve the Summons, Complaint,

Amended Complaint, a copy of all Orders entered by the Court, and a copy of

this Report and Recommendation on Officer Tripp.

(3) This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for additional proceedings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties file any objections to this 

Recommendation on or before February 19, 2010. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is

objecting. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District

Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and,

therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the

Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party 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 (5th Cir. 1982); see Stein v.

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

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

of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30,

1981).

Page 5 of 6

Case 1:09-cv-01061-MEF-TFM Document 10 Filed 02/05/10 Page 5 of 6
DONE this 5th of February 2010

/s/ Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 6 of 6

Case 1:09-cv-01061-MEF-TFM Document 10 Filed 02/05/10 Page 6 of 6