Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00347/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00347-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

BOBBY L. JACKSON, #145 722, ) 

)

Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-347-TMH

 ) [WO]

ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS )

and PAROLES, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Limestone Correctional Facility, files this 42

U.S.C. § 1983 complaining that Defendants have barred him from parole eligibility, which

he previously was eligible for, through application of Ala. Code § 15-22-27.3 in violation of

the Ex Post Facto Clause. Among the named defendants is the Alabama Board of Pardons

and Paroles. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that Plaintiff’s complaint

against the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles is subject to dismissal in accordance with

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

1

A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint 1

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

Case 2:13-cv-00347-CSC Document 13 Filed 08/05/13 Page 1 of 3
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 complaint against the

Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory,”

and his claims against this defendant 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). 

2

II. CONCLUSION

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

1. Plaintiff complaint against the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles be

DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i);

2. The Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles be DISMISSED as a party 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 

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

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

2

Case 2:13-cv-00347-CSC Document 13 Filed 08/05/13 Page 2 of 3
ORDERED that on or before August 19, 2013 the parties may file an objection to the

Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. 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 a written objection 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 5 day of August, 2013. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:13-cv-00347-CSC Document 13 Filed 08/05/13 Page 3 of 3