Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_11-cv-00759/USCOURTS-almd-1_11-cv-00759-0/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

JIMMY EARL HALL, #103508, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-759-TMH

) [WO]

)

GENEVA COUNTY, ALA., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on an amended complaint

filed by Jimmy Earl Hall [“Hall”], a state inmate, on October 12, 2011. In the amended

complaint, Hall complains that deputy Hunter, a bailiff for the Circuit Court of Houston

County, Alabama, used excessive force to remove him from the courtroom on July 1, 2010.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint - Court Doc. No. 7 at 2-3. Hall names Geneva County,

Alabama, Andy Hughes, the Sheriff of Houston County, Alabama, and deputy Hunter as

defendants in this cause of action.

Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that the plaintiff’s claims against

Geneva County, Alabama and Andy Hughes are due to be dismissed prior to service of

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

1

The court granted Hall leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Court Doc. No. 3. A prisoner who is allowed to 1

proceed in forma pauperis will have his complaint screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) which requires this court

Case 1:11-cv-00759-TMH-CSC Document 9 Filed 10/14/11 Page 1 of 4
II. DISMISSAL OF GENEVA COUNTY, ALABAMA AND ANDY HUGHES

Although Hall lists Geneva County and Andy Hughes as defendants, he presents no

claims against these defendants. Specifically, the complaint is devoid of any facts which

support a basisfor liability against Geneva County asthe bailiff responsible for the alleged

constitutional violations is a deputy of Houston County. To the extent Hall seeks to hold

Andy Hughes liable solely due to his supervisory role as the Sheriff of Houston County,

he is entitled to no relief because the law is well settled that “supervisory officials are not

liable under § 1983 for the unconstitutional acts of their subordinates on the basis of

respondeat superior or vicarious liability.” Miller v. King, 384 F.3d 1248, 1261 (11 Cir.

th

2004); Gonzalez v. Reno, 325 F.3d 1228, 1234 (11 Cir. 2003) (concluding supervisory

th

officials are not liable on the basis of respondeat superior or vicarious liability); Hartley

v. Parnell, 193 F.3d 1263, 1269 (11 Cir.1999), citing Belcher v. City of Foley, 30 F.3d

th

1390, 1396 (11 Cir. 1994) (42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not allow a plaintiff to hold supervisory

th

officials liable for the actions of subordinates/employees under either a theory of

respondeat superior or vicarious liability); Cook ex rel. Estate of Tessier v. Sheriff of

Monroe County, Florida, 402 F.3d 1092, 1115-1116 (11 Cir. 2005) (a prisoner simply

th

cannot rely on theories of vicarious liability or respondeat superior to establish liability).

Consequently, Andy Hughes is due to be dismissed as a defendant to this cause of action

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).

2

Case 1:11-cv-00759-TMH-CSC Document 9 Filed 10/14/11 Page 2 of 4
pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.

319, 327 (1989).

2

III. CONCLUSION

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

1. The plaintiff’s claims against Geneva County, Alabama and Andy Hughes be

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

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

2. Geneva County, Alabama and Andy Hughes be dismissed as defendants in this

cause of action.

3. The plaintiff’s claims against deputy Hunter be referred back to the undersigned

for appropriate proceedings.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before October 28, 2011, the parties may file objections to

this Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge’sRecommendation to which the partyis 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.

 Although Neitzke interpreted the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the predecessor to § 1915(e)(2), the

2

analysis contained therein remains applicable to the directives contained in the present statute.

3

Case 1:11-cv-00759-TMH-CSC Document 9 Filed 10/14/11 Page 3 of 4
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 14 day of October, 2011.

th

/s/Charles S. Coody

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:11-cv-00759-TMH-CSC Document 9 Filed 10/14/11 Page 4 of 4