Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02022/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02022-0/pdf.json

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

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

LATRIVIA E. HARRIS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-2022

SEBASTIAN COUNTY JAIL,

SGT. CROUCH, DEPUTY PATE,

and DEPUTY HALSEY DEFENDANTS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Latrivia E. Harris brings this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging

that her constitutional rights were violated while detained in the Sebastian County Detention

Center. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 14) the Sebastian County Jail as

a defendant in this action. The plaintiff has not filed a response to this motion.

In their motion, defendants state that the Sebastian County Jail is not a person recognized

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and thus should be dismissed as a party in this action. (Doc. 14.) In the

brief in support, defendants explain that section 1983 authorizes the imposition of liability

against "persons" who, acting under color of state law, subjects a citizen to a deprivation of

constitutional rights, and that theSebastian County Jail is a building and not a "person" amenable

to suit under section 1983. 

We agree. The Sebastian County Jail is not a legal entity subject to suit under section

1983. See e.g., Powell v. Cook County Jail, 814 F. Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (jail not subject

to suit); Marsden v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 856 F. Supp. 832, 836 (S.D.N.Y.1994) ("jail is not

an entity that is amenable to suit"). 

Case 2:06-cv-02022-JLH Document 18 Filed 08/28/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

Therefore, I recommend that defendants' motion (Doc. 14) to dismiss the Sebastian

County Detention Jail as a defendant be GRANTED and this party be DISMISSED. 

Notably, there are several other defendants named in this action, so the plaintiff will be

able to pursue her claims against these defendants. 

The parties have ten days from receipt of this report and recommendation in which

to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely

written objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties

are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by

the district court. 

DATED this 28th day of August 2006.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones

_________________________________________

HON. BEVERLY STITES JONES 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02022-JLH Document 18 Filed 08/28/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>