Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00526/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00526-0/pdf.json

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

---

1A 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 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).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

JOHN INMAN, #234 821 *

Plaintiff, *

v. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-526-T

WO

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., *

Defendants. *

 _______________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, John Inman, is incarcerated at the Frank Lee Youth Center located in

Deatsville, Alabama. He files this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the State of Alabama, the

Alabama Department of Corrections, Prison Health Systems, and Correctional OfficerJames,

Caton, Jr. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that Plaintiff’s claims against

the State of Alabama and the Alabama Department of Corrections are subject to dismissal

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

DISCUSSION

The State of Alabama and the Alabama Department of Corrections are not subject to

suit or liability under § 1983. The Eleventh Amendment bars suit directly against a state or

Case 2:05-cv-00526-MHT-DRB Document 6 Filed 06/15/05 Page 1 of 3
 

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

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

2

its agencies, regardless of the nature of relief sought. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986);

Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984). Thus, Plaintiff’s claims

against the State of Alabama and the Alabama Department of Corrections are “based on an

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).2 

 CONCLUSION

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

1. Plaintiff claims against the State of Alabama and the Alabama Department of

Corrections be dismissed with prejudice prior to service of process under 28 U.S.C. §

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

2. The State of Alabama and the Alabama Department of Corrections be dismissed

as parties to this cause of action; and

3. This case with respect to Plaintiff’s claims against the remaining defendants be

referred back to the undersigned for further proceedings. 

It is further 

ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to the said Recommendation on

or before June 27, 2005. 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

Case 2:05-cv-00526-MHT-DRB Document 6 Filed 06/15/05 Page 2 of 3
3

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

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 June, 2005. 

/s/ Delores R. Boyd

DELORES R. BOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00526-MHT-DRB Document 6 Filed 06/15/05 Page 3 of 3