Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_16-cv-00862/USCOURTS-almd-1_16-cv-00862-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

EIBE SCOTT, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-862-WKW 

) 

COFFEE COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT. et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION 

 This case is before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed by Eibe Scott 

(“Scott”), an indigent inmate presently confined at the Coffee County Jail. In this 

complaint, Scott challenges conditions to which he is subjected at the Coffee County Jail, 

including the medical treatment provided to him for a broken finger. Scott names the 

Coffee County Sheriff Department, the Coffee County Jail, Byron Caylor, the jail 

administrator, Quality Correctional Health Care, the jail’s medical care provider, and Nurse 

Brenda Stuckey as defendants in this cause of action. 

 Upon thorough review of the complaint, the court concludes that Scott’s claims 

against the Coffee County Sheriff Department and the Coffee County Jail are due to be 

dismissed in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).1

 

1The court granted Scott leave to proceed in forma pauperis on November 4, 2016 (Doc. No. 3). A prisoner granted 

in forma pauperis status will have his complaint screened under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This 

screening procedure requires the court to dismiss the complaint prior to service of process if it determines that the 

Case 1:16-cv-00862-WKW-WC Document 5 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 4
2 

II. DISCUSSION

 In order to allege a viable § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must name as a defendant an 

entity that is subject to being sued. Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992). 

Moreover, an essential element of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is that a person acting under 

color of state law committed the constitutional violation about which the plaintiff 

complains. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (1999); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 

U.S. 527 (1981); Willis v. Univ. Health Serv., Inc., 993 F.2d 837, 840 (11th Cir. 1993). 

The capacity of a party to be sued is “determined by the law of the state in which 

the district court is held.” Dean, 951 F.2d at 1214. The law is well settled that the sheriff’s 

department of an Alabama county “is not a legal entity and, therefore, is not subject to suit 

or liability under section 1983.” Id.; White v. Birchfield, 582 So.2d 1085, 1087 (Ala. 1991) 

(“The Chambers County Sheriff’s Department is not a legal entity subject to suit. 

Therefore, a cause of action may not be maintained against the Chambers County Sheriff’s 

Department.”); King v. Colbert Cty., 620 So.2d 623, 626 (Ala. 1993) (“The Colbert County 

Sheriff’s Department is not a legal entity. Therefore, one cannot maintain an action against 

it.”). Moreover, the Alabama Supreme Court has made it equally clear that other 

“departments and subordinate entities of municipalities, counties and towns” such as a 

county jail “lack[] the capacity to sue or be sued . . .” Ex parte Dixon, 55 So.3d 1171, 1172 

n.1 (Ala. 2010). Finally, a county jail is merely a physical structure which is not a person 

within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for purposes of suit or liability. 

 

claims raised therein are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary 

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

Case 1:16-cv-00862-WKW-WC Document 5 Filed 11/07/16 Page 2 of 4
3 

 In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that the claims lodged against the 

Coffee County Sheriff Department and the Coffee County Jail are due to be dismissed as 

frivolous in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

III. CONCLUSION

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

 1. The plaintiff’s claims against the Coffee County Sheriff Department and the 

Coffee County Jail be summarily dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

 2. The Coffee County Sheriff Department and the Coffee County Jail be dismissed 

as defendants in this cause of action. 

 3. This case, with respect to the plaintiff’s claims lodged against Byron Caylor, 

Quality Correctional Health Care and Nurse Brenda Stuckey, be referred back to the 

undersigned for further appropriate proceedings. 

The plaintiff is advised that he may file objections to the Recommendation on or 

before November 21, 2016. Any objections filed must specifically identify the factual 

findings and legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the 

plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the 

District Court. 

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

the Magistrate Judge’s report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District 

Court of factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall “waive the right 

Case 1:16-cv-00862-WKW-WC Document 5 Filed 11/07/16 Page 3 of 4
4 

to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal 

conclusions” except upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 11th 

Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th 

Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989). 

 DONE this 7th day of November, 2016. 

 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:16-cv-00862-WKW-WC Document 5 Filed 11/07/16 Page 4 of 4