Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05050/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05050-0/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

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

MARK MILLER PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5050

BENTON COUNTY JAIL; KEITH FERGUSON,

Sheriff, Benton County, Arkansas, and DEPUTY

BARRETT, Benton County Jail DEFENDANTS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Mark Miller brings this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that

his constitutional rights were violated while detained in the Benton County Detention Center.

The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) the Benton County Jail as a defendant

in this action. The plaintiff has not filed a response to this motion. The defendants have also

filed a motion (Doc. 14) to dismissthis action because plaintiff has not complied with local court

rules to keep the court informed of his current address. 

In their motion, defendants state that the Benton 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. 20.) 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 the Benton County Jail is a building and not a "person" amenable

to suit under section 1983. 

We agree. The Benton 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

Case 5:06-cv-05050-JLH Document 18 Filed 08/28/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

that is amenable to suit"); In re Scott County Master Docket, 672 F. Supp. 1152, 1163 n. 1 (D.

Minn.1987) (sheriff's department is not legal entity subject to suit), aff'd, Myers v. Scott County,

868 F.2d 1017 (8th Cir.1989). 

Concerning the defendants' motion (Doc. 14) to dismiss this action because the plaintiff

has failed to keep the court apprised of his current address, the court has located a possible

current address for plaintiff and entered a change-of-address order to reflect this new address.

As the court favors resolution of cases on their merits, defendants' motion (Doc. 14) to dismiss

should be denied. The plaintiff is reminded, however, that he is responsible for maintaining a

current address with the court. 

Therefore, I recommend that defendants' motion (Doc. 12) to dismiss the Benton County

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 his claims against

these defendants. 

Further, I recommend that plaintiff's August 14, 2006 motion (Doc. 14) to dismiss be

DENIED. 

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. 

Case 5:06-cv-05050-JLH Document 18 Filed 08/28/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

DATED this 28th day of August 2006.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones

_________________________________________

HON. BEVERLY STITES JONES 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05050-JLH Document 18 Filed 08/28/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>