Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-01044/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-01044-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE JAMES BARBER, )

AIS #273254, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-1044-TMH

) [WO]

)

CAPTAIN BABERS, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Willie James Barber, a state inmate, challenges conditions

of confinement during his previous incarceration at the Easterling Correctional Facility. Barber

names the Alabama Department of Corrections as a defendant in this cause of action. 

Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes the plaintiff’s claims against the Alabama

Department of Corrections are due to be dismissed in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

1

DISCUSSION

The law is well-settled that state agencies are absolutely immune from suit. Papasan v.

Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986) (Unless the State or its agency consents to suit, the plaintiff cannot

proceed against such defendant as the action is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment and “[t]his

 The court granted Barber leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Order of December 13, 2011 - Court Doc.

1

No. 3. A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis will have his complaintscreened under the provisions

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) which requires this 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 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).

Case 2:11-cv-01044-WHA-CSC Document 27 Filed 03/16/12 Page 1 of 3
bar exists whether the reliefsought is legal or equitable.”). Any claims lodged against the Alabama

Department of Corrections are therefore frivolous as such claims are “based on an indisputably

meritless legal theory.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Consequently, the claims 2

presented by Barber against the Alabama Department of Corrections are subject to summary

dismissal pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

CONCLUSION

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

1. The plaintiff’s claims against the Alabama Department of Corrections be dismissed with

prejudice pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

2. The Alabama Department of Corrections be dismissed as a defendant in this cause of

action.

3. This case, with respect to the allegations set forth against the remaining defendants, be

referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. 

It is further 

ORDERED that on or before March 30, 2012, the parties may file objections to the

Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate

Judge's Recommendation to which the partyis 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

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

2

contained therein remains applicable to the present statute.

2

Case 2:11-cv-01044-WHA-CSC Document 27 Filed 03/16/12 Page 2 of 3
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 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein v. th

Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 th

F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former th

Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Done this 16 day of March, 2012. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:11-cv-01044-WHA-CSC Document 27 Filed 03/16/12 Page 3 of 3