Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02145/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02145-0/pdf.json

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

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

KIMBERLEY GAIL HANKS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-2145

 

CRAWFORD COUNTY JAIL;

CHERYL BORUM; and CARRIE, 

Deputy/Floor Officer DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Kimberly Gail Hanks filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on

October 21, 2005. She proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis.

She names as defendants the Crawford County Jail and two individuals who work at the

facility. The jail is a building and not a person or a legal entity subject to suit under § 1983. See

e.g., Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992)(“[s]heriff’s departments and police

departments are not usually considered legal entities subject to suit”); 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”);

In re Scott County Master Docket, 672 F. Supp. 1152, 1163 n. 1 (D. Minn. 1987)(sheriff’s

department is not a legal entity subject to suit), aff’d, Myers v. Scott County, 863 F.2d 1017 (8th

Cir. 1989).

Accordingly, I recommend that Hanks’ claims against the Crawford County Jail be

dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)- (iii) (in forma pauperis action, or any portion of

it, may be dismissed for failure to state a claim). However, I note that by separate order service

will be directed on the remaining defendants. 

Case 2:05-cv-02145-BSJ Document 9 Filed 12/29/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

Hanks has 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 objections

may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. Hanks is reminded that

objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court.

DATED this 29th day of December 2005.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-02145-BSJ Document 9 Filed 12/29/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>