Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00014/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00014-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

 

ROBERT LEE DANIELS, #205 694, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-14-MHT 

 ) [WO] 

D.O.C., et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Draper Correctional Facility in Elmore, 

Alabama, files this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining that another inmate attacked him because 

of a lack of sufficient security in his dorm. Plaintiff names as defendants former 

Commissioner Kim Thomas, the Alabama Department of Corrections [“ADOC”], Warden 

Louis Boyd, and Officer D. Smith. Upon review, the court concludes that dismissal of 

Plaintiff’s claims against former Commissioner Thomas, Warden Boyd, and the ADOC is 

appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

I. DISCUSSION 

A. ADOC

The Alabama Department of Corrections is not subject to suit or liability under § 

1983. The Eleventh Amendment bars suit directly against a state or its agencies, regardless 

of relief sought. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. 

Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984). Plaintiff’s claims against the ADOC are “based on an 

Case 2:15-cv-00014-MHT-WC Document 11 Filed 04/15/15 Page 1 of 4
2 

indisputably meritless legal theory,” and are, therefore, subject to dismissal as frivolous 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). 

B. Commissioner Kim Thomas and Warden Boyd

Plaintiff names former Commissioner Kim Thomas and Warden Boyd as defendants 

to this cause of action. Other than naming Defendants Thomas and Boyd as defendants, 

Plaintiff makes no allegations of wrongdoing against these individuals. See Douglas v. 

Yates, 535 F.3d 1316, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that a district court properly dismisses 

defendant where a prisoner, other than naming the defendant in the caption, states no 

allegations that connect the defendant with the alleged constitutional violation); see also

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Further, the complaint may not proceed against 

Defendants Thomas and Boyd based on their supervisory position. 

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to impose liability on Defendants Thomas and Boyd 

because of the alleged wrongdoing by their subordinates, such claim is due to be dismissed. 

Supervisory personnel cannot be liable under § 1983 for a constitutional violation of one 

of their subordinates via a theory of respondeat superior or on the basis of vicarious 

liability absent proof of actual personal involvement in the alleged wrongdoing. Monell v. 

Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 692 (1978); Belcher v. City of Foley, 30 F.3d 1390, 

1396 (11th Cir. 1994) (42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not allow a plaintiff to hold supervisory 

officials liable for the actions of their subordinates under either a theory of respondeat 

superior or vicarious liability); see also Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 

2003) (holding that a supervisory official is liable only if he “personally participate[d] in 

the alleged unconstitutional conduct or [if] there is a causal connection between [his] 

Case 2:15-cv-00014-MHT-WC Document 11 Filed 04/15/15 Page 2 of 4
3 

actions . . . and the alleged constitutional deprivation.”). Plaintiff makes no allegation of 

constitutional violations against Defendants Thomas or Boyd nor does he indicate these 

individuals were personally involved in the constitutional violations about which he 

complains. See Cottone, 326 F.3d at 1360. Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants 

Thomas and Boyd is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). See 

Neitzke, 490 U.S. 319. 

II. CONCLUSION 

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

1. Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants Thomas, Boyd, and the Alabama 

Department of Corrections be DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii); 

2. Defendants Thomas, Boyd, and the Alabama Department of Corrections be 

DISMISSED as parties to the complaint; and 

3. This case regarding the remaining defendant be referred to the undersigned for 

further proceedings. 

 It is further 

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said 

Recommendation on or before April 29, 2015. 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. 

Case 2:15-cv-00014-MHT-WC Document 11 Filed 04/15/15 Page 3 of 4
4 

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 (5thCir. 

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 15th day of April, 2015. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-00014-MHT-WC Document 11 Filed 04/15/15 Page 4 of 4