Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-01168/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-01168-1/pdf.json

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

---

Plaintiff is currently serving a sentence of life with the possibility of parole. See 1

http://www.doc.state.al.us/insearch.asp.

 A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint screened in 2

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening procedure requires the court to

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

FRANKLIN DELANO ACOFF, #107 587 *

Plaintiff, *

 v. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-1168-F

 (WO)

ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS *

AND PAROLES, et al.,

*

Defendants.

 _______________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se, brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the

Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles and William Segrest, Executive Director of the

Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles. Plaintiff complains that Defendants violated his

constitutional rights when, in October 2005, they scheduled his parole consideration date at

a five year set-off. He requests that Defendants re-schedule his parole consideration date 1

within a period of three years or less. Upon review of the allegations contained in the instant

complaint, the court concludes that Plaintiff’s claims against the Alabama Board of Pardons

and Parole are due to be dismissed prior to service of process in accordance with the provisions

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

2

Case 2:05-cv-01168-WKW-CSC Document 5 Filed 01/13/06 Page 1 of 3
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

I. DISCUSSION

The Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles is not subject to suit or liability under §

1983. The Eleventh Amendment bars suit directly against a state or 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 Board 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). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). 

II. CONCLUSION

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

1. Plaintiff’s claims against the Alabama Board of Pardons and Parole be DISMISSED

with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C. §

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

2. Defendant Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles be DISMISSED as a party to this

complaint; and

3. This case with respect to the remaining defendant be referred back to the

undersigned for additional proceedings.

It is further 

Case 2:05-cv-01168-WKW-CSC Document 5 Filed 01/13/06 Page 2 of 3
3

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

before January 26, 2006. 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 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 13 day of January, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01168-WKW-CSC Document 5 Filed 01/13/06 Page 3 of 3