Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00173/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00173-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

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).

 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

TONY TERRELL WOODS, #224279, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:07-CV-173-ID 

) [WO]

)

STATE OF ALABAMA DEPT. OF )

CORRECTIONS, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Tony Terrell Woods [“Woods”], a state inmate,

challenges the allegedly unequal application of disciplinary rules at the Frank Lee Youth

Center. 

 Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that dismissal of the plaintiff's

claims against the Alabama Department of Corrections and Richard Allen prior to service of

process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).1

 

DISCUSSION

The plaintiff names the Alabama Department of Corrections as a defendant in this

cause of action. The law is well-settled that state agencies are immune from suit, Papasan

Case 2:07-cv-00173-ID-CSC Document 5 Filed 02/28/07 Page 1 of 3
 2

 Although Neitzke interpreted the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the predecessor to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2), the analysis contained therein remains applicable to the present statute.

2

v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986), and are not persons within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2309 (1989).

Thus, the plaintiff's claims against the Alabama Department of Corrections are frivolous as

they are "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

327 (1989).2

 Such claims are therefore subject to dismissal pursuant to the directives of 28

U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

CONCLUSION

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

1. The plaintiff's claims against the Alabama Department of Corrections be dismissed

prior to service of process in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

2. The Alabama Department of Corrections be dismissed from this cause of action.

3. This case, with respect to the claims lodged against the remaining defendants, be

referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings.

It is further 

ORDERED that on or before March 13, 2007 the parties may file objections to the

Recommendation. 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

Case 2:07-cv-00173-ID-CSC Document 5 Filed 02/28/07 Page 2 of 3
3

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 advisements in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the

District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation 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.

Done this 28th day of February, 2007.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00173-ID-CSC Document 5 Filed 02/28/07 Page 3 of 3