Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00141/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00141-1/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES HICKS, #246241, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07-CV-141-WHA

) [WO]

)

ALA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION 

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Charles Hicks [“Hicks”], a state inmate and frequent

litigant in this court, complains that he has been confined at the Frank Lee Youth Center

since June of 2006 despite his completion of a drug treatment program and has been denied

an annual classification review. Hicks names the Alabama Department of Corrections,

Richard Allen, commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, John Cummings,

warden of the Frank Lee Youth Center, Harold Burton, a captain at such facility, and Debra

Martin, his classification specialist, as defendants in this cause of action. Hicks seeks

declaratory and injunctive relief for the alleged violations of his constitutional rights

Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that this case is due to be dismissed

with prejudice prior to service of process upon application of the provisions set forth in 28

Case 2:07-cv-00141-WHA-CSC Document 4 Filed 02/22/07 Page 1 of 6
 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 claims prior to service of process if it determines that the complaint contains

claims which 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).

 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

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).1 

II. DISCUSSION

A. The Alabama Department of Corrections

Hicks names the Alabama Department of Corrections as a defendant in this cause of

action. A state and its agencies are entitled to absolute immunity from suit, Papasan v.

Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986). Additionally, state agencies 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 this defendant 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). 

B. Respondeat Superior

The claims presented by Hicks relate to the actions and/or inactions of defendant

Martin. Thus, it is apparent that defendants Allen, Cummings and Burton are sued due to

their holding supervisory positions. However, the law is well settled that a defendant cannot

be held liable in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 under the theory of

Case 2:07-cv-00141-WHA-CSC Document 4 Filed 02/22/07 Page 2 of 6
3

respondeat superior or on the basis of vicarious liability. Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs.,

436 U.S. 658, 690-92, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2036, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Harris v. Ostrout, 65

F.3d 912, 917 (11th Cir. 1995); Belcher v. City of Foley, 30 F.3d 1390, 1396 (11th Cir. 1994);

LaMarca v. Turner, 995 F.2d 1526, 1538 (11th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1164, 114

S.Ct. 1189, 127 L.Ed.2d 539 (1994). In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that the

plaintiff’s claims against defendants Allen, Cummings and Burton lack an arguable basis in

law and are therefore subject to summary dismissal in accordance with the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. 

C. Classification

To the extent Hicks challenges his classification level due to defendant Martin’s

failure to conduct a timely annual review, he is entitled to no relief. An inmate confined in

the Alabama prison system has no constitutionally protected interest in the procedure

affecting his classification level because the resulting restraint, without more, does not

impose an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary

incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). Thus, the failure to

conduct a classification review does not implicate the Constitution and this claim is due to

be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

 D. Confinement at the Frank Lee Youth Center

1. The Due Process Claim. Hicks asserts that defendant Martin has assigned him to

incarceration at the Frank Lee Youth Center “for no reason at all” in violation of his due

Case 2:07-cv-00141-WHA-CSC Document 4 Filed 02/22/07 Page 3 of 6
4

process rights. Plaintiff’s Complaint at 3. A convicted prisoner has no constitutionally

protected right to confinement in a particular penal facility. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215,

224 (1976). Thus, an inmate may be confined in any correctional facility without implicating

the prisoner’s constitutional rights. Id.; see also Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242

(1976). Although the plaintiff’s confinement at the Frank Lee Youth Center may entail

“more burdensome conditions” than that of a lower security level facility, such confinement

is “‘within the normal limits or range of custody which the conviction has authorized the

State to impose.’ [Meachum, 427 U.S. at 225]; see also Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236,

242, 96 S.Ct. 2543, 2547, 49 L.Ed.2d 466 (1976).” Sandin, 515 U.S. at 478. Consequently,

the failure to transfer Hicks to a correctional facility of his choosing does not rise to the level

of a constitutional violation and such claim therefore provides no basis for relief in this 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action.

2. Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Hicks contends that his confinement at the Frank

Lee Youth Center rather than a lower security facility for which he is eligible constitutes

cruel and unusual punishment. This claim is likewise without merit. As previously noted,

an inmate may be confined in any correctional facility without implicating the prisoner’s

constitutional rights. Meachum, 427 U.S. at 224; Montanye, 427 U.S. at 242. Moreover, the

Eighth Amendment proscribes only those conditions of confinement which deprive an

inmate of “the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452

U.S. 337, 347 (1981); see also Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991). Neither classification

Case 2:07-cv-00141-WHA-CSC Document 4 Filed 02/22/07 Page 4 of 6
5

of an inmate in a higher custody level nor his confinement in a more secure correctional

facility alleges a sufficiently grave deprivation so as to rise to the level of cruel and unusual

punishment. Consequently, the Eighth Amendment claims set forth in the instant complaint

are subject to summary dismissal pursuant to directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case

be dismissed with prejudice prior to service of process in accordance with the provisions of

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii)

It is further 

ORDERED that on or before March 7, 2007 the parties may file objections to this

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

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

Case 2:07-cv-00141-WHA-CSC Document 4 Filed 02/22/07 Page 5 of 6
6

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 22nd day of February, 2007.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00141-WHA-CSC Document 4 Filed 02/22/07 Page 6 of 6