Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_16-cv-00188/USCOURTS-almd-1_16-cv-00188-0/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 DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GEORGE EDWARD JARRELL, ) 

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CASE NO. 1:16-CV-188-MHT 

)

DONALD VALENZA, et al., ) 

 )

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a complaint filed by George 

Edward Jarrell (“Jarrell”), a pre-trial detainee incarcerated in the Houston County Jail on various 

criminal charges. In the instant complaint, Jarrell challenges the constitutionality of medical 

treatment provided to him during his confinement in the Houston County Jail since September of 

2014 for injuries suffered at the time of his arrest. Jarrell names Donald Valenza, the Sheriff of 

Houston County, Alabama, Jason Smoke, a Certified Physician’s Assistant, and the Houston 

County Jail as defendants in this cause of action. 

 Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that the claims presented by Jarrell 

against the Houston County Jail are subject to summary dismissal pursuant to the provisions of 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

1

 

1

The court granted Jarrell leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. Order of April 6, 2016 - Doc. 

No. 5. Despite Jarrell’s payment of an initial partial filing fee, this court must screen the complaint under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) which requires the court to dismiss a prisoner’s civil action prior to service of 

process if it determines that the complaint presents a claim which 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 1:16-cv-00188-ECM-GMB Document 15 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 3
2

II. DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT 

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

is subject to suit. Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992). The capacity of a party 

to be sued is “determined by the law of the state in which the district court is held.” Id. Both 

federal and state law are well settled that a county sheriff’s department is not a legal entity subject 

to suit or liability. Id.; White v. Birchfield, 582 So.2d 1085, 1087 (Ala. 1991) (county sheriff’s 

department “is not a legal entity subject to suit. Therefore, a cause of action may not be maintained 

against [an Alabama] County Sheriff's Department.”); King v. Colbert County, 620 So.2d 623, 626 

(Ala. 1993) (Since a county sheriff’s department “is not a legal entity . . ., 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 police 

departments and task forces “lack[] the capacity to sue or be sued . . .” Ex parte Dixon, 55 So.3d 

1171, 1172 n.1 (Ala. 2010). It therefore follows that a building or structure utilized by the county 

is not a legal entity subject to suit.

In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the Houston County Jail is not a legal entity subject 

to suit and is therefore due to be dismissed as a defendant in accordance with the directives 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 Houston County Jail be dismissed with prejudice prior 

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

2. The Houston County Jail be dismissed as a defendant in this cause of action.

Case 1:16-cv-00188-ECM-GMB Document 15 Filed 06/07/16 Page 2 of 3
3

3. This case, with respect to the plaintiff’s claims against defendants Valenza and Smoke

regarding a lack of adequate medical treatment, be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate 

proceedings. 

It is further 

ORDERED that on or before June 21, 2016 the parties may file objections to this 

Recommendation. 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 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 June, 2016.

/s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00188-ECM-GMB Document 15 Filed 06/07/16 Page 3 of 3