Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00596/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00596-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

1

Local Rule 72.2(c)(1) provides for the automatic referral of

non-dispositive pretrial matters, such as Plaintiff’s Motion to

Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 2), to the Magistrate

Judges for hearing and determination.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARY C. ELLIS, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-0596-CG-M

STATE OF ALABAMA, :

Defendant. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

filed a Complaint invoking the Court’s jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1331. This action has been referred to the undersigned

for appropriate action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and

Local Rule 72.2(c)(1).1 It is recommended this action be

dismissed with prejudice, prior to service of process, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as frivolous.

I. Complaint (Doc. 1).

Plaintiff names as the sole Defendant State of Alabama, and

invokes this Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1331 for a violation of her procedural due process

rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Doc. 1) However,

Plaintiff’s specific claim against the State is unintelligible

Case 1:06-cv-00596-CG-M Document 4 Filed 02/06/07 Page 1 of 7
 2

The undersigned observes that Plaintiff previously filed an

action in this Court, Mary Ellis v. State of Alabama, et al., CA

05-0117-P-M (S.D. Ala. July 14, 2001), against Defendants State

of Alabama, Alabama Supreme Court, and Alabama State Bar. 

Plaintiff claimed that there was a “fraudulent conveyance” of

property from her mother’s estate by the probate court causing

Plaintiff to file numerous appeals and proceedings, which

involved the Alabama Supreme Court and the State. (Doc. 1)

In dismissing the action, this Court found the action was a

collateral attack on a state-court judgment and, therefore, it

lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. District of Columbia Court

of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 1315,

(1983) (a federal district court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction to review claims that were previously ruled upon by

a state court). (Docs. 3 & 6) Also, Plaintiff was advised in

the Report and Recommendation that the State of Alabama was due

to be dismissed on the alternate basis of sovereign immunity. 

(Doc. 3)

2

because her allegations are not supported by facts. The

following is the sum of her allegations comprising her claim. 

Access To Redress STATE(Supreme

Court) Deprivation of the

(Federal)(Procedural) Due Process

of Property Right by STATE(Law)(§

12-1-7) Confirmation of Fraud

(Extrinsic)(presented/‘taken’ in

the STATE under the Recording

Act).*

* Plaintiff’s cause of action in the State sought

redress, thereof

4. PLAINTIFF alleges that the Recording

Act, Code of Ala., 1975, as utilized by the

STATE, violates Amendment 14, U.S.C.A.,

inasmuch as, it is being used as an expedient

to deprive ‘due process rights’.2

For relief, Plaintiff requests this Court to exercise its

jurisdiction over her action.

II. Discussion.

Case 1:06-cv-00596-CG-M Document 4 Filed 02/06/07 Page 2 of 7
 3

The predecessor to this section is 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Even

though Congress made many substantive changes to § 1915(d) when

it enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2)(B), the frivolity and the

failure to state a claim analysis contained in Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827 (1989), was unaltered. 

Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir.), cert. denied,

534 U.S. 1044, 122 S.Ct. 624 (2001); Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d

863, 866 n.4 (6th Cir. 2000). However, dismissal under §

1915(e)(2)(B) is now mandatory. Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1348-49.

3

A. Frivolity Standard of Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court

is reviewing Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B).3 Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir.

2002) (applying § 1915(e) to non-prisoner actions). Under §

1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a claim may be dismissed as “frivolous where it

lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831-32 (1989). A claim is

frivolous as a matter of law where, inter alia, the defendants

are immune from suit, id. at 327, 109 S.Ct. at 1833, the claim

seeks to enforce a right that clearly does not exist, id., or

there is an affirmative defense that would defeat the claim, such

as the statute of limitations, Clark v. Georgia Pardons & Paroles

Bd., 915 F.2d 636, 640 n.2 (11th Cir. 1990). Judges are accorded

“not only the authority to dismiss [as frivolous] a claim based

on indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual

power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations

and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly

Case 1:06-cv-00596-CG-M Document 4 Filed 02/06/07 Page 3 of 7
4

baseless.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327, 109 S.Ct. at 1833. 

B. Analysis.

The sole Defendant is the State of Alabama. Who this

Defendant is determines the outcome of Plaintiff’s action. The

Defendant, as the State, is entitled to immunity from suit by the

Eleventh Amendment. Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782, 98 S.Ct.

3057, 3058 (1978) (ruling the Eleventh Amendment barred an action

against the State).

The Eleventh Amendment’s sovereign immunity “prohibits

federal courts from entertaining suits by private parties against

States and their agencies.” Id. at 781, 98 S.Ct. at 3057; see

Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65, 109

S.Ct. 2304, 2310 (1989). The two exceptions to sovereign

immunity are if the State has waived its immunity or if Congress

has abrogated the State’s immunity. Carr v. City of Florence,

Ala., 916 F.2d 1521, 1524 (11th Cir. 1990). Alabama though has

not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. Pugh, 438 U.S. at

782, 98 S.Ct. at 3058 (finding Article I, § 14, of the Alabama

Constitution prohibits Alabama from giving its consent and

therefore the State of Alabama was entitled to Eleventh Amendment

immunity); Lancaster v. Monroe County, Ala., 116 F.3d 1419, 1429

(11th Cir. 1997) (holding Alabama has not waived its Eleventh

Amendment immunity). Nor has Congress in § 1983, assuming

Plaintiff would have wanted to use this remedial vehicle as she

Case 1:06-cv-00596-CG-M Document 4 Filed 02/06/07 Page 4 of 7
 4

Section 1983 provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute,

ordinance, regulation, custom, or usuage, of any State

or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or

causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United

States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof

to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or

immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall

be liable to the party injured in an action at law,

suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress,

except that in any action brought against a judicial

officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s

judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be

granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or

declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes

of this section, any Act of Congress applicable

exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be

considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

(Emphasis added.)

5

did not identified one, abrogated a State’s Eleventh Amendment

immunity. Carr, 916 F.2d at 1525 (citing Quern v. Jordan, 440

U.S. 332, 345, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 1147 (1979)); Sessions v. Rusk

State Hosp., 648 F.2d 1066, 1069 (5th Cir. June 26, 1981). Thus,

because Defendant State of Alabama is entitled to Eleventh

Amendment immunity, it is due to be dismissed because the claim

against it is frivolous as a matter of law. 

Furthermore, if Plaintiff had identified this action as a §

1983 action, § 1983 requires that a “person” be named as a

Defendant.4 However, a state is a not “person” for the purpose

of § 1983 action. Will, 491 U.S. at 64, 109 S.Ct. at 2308. For

this reason, a § 1983 action against Defendant State of Alabama

would also be frivolous. 

Case 1:06-cv-00596-CG-M Document 4 Filed 02/06/07 Page 5 of 7
6

III. Conclusion.

Based upon the foregoing reasons, it is recommended this

action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as frivolous. 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of

this document, file specific written objections with the clerk of

court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the

district judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an

attack, on appeal, of the factual findings of the magistrate

judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d

736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404

(5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). The procedure for challenging

the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge is set

out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which

provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing

a “Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten days after being served with

a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time

is established by order. The statement of objection

shall specify those portions of the recommendation to

which objection is made and the basis for the

objection. The objecting party shall submit to the

district judge, at the time of filing the objection, a

brief setting forth the party’s arguments that the

magistrate judge’s recommendation should be reviewed de

novo and a different disposition made. It is

insufficient to submit only a copy of the original

brief submitted to the magistrate judge, although a

copy of the original brief may be submitted or referred

to and incorporated into the brief in support of the

objection. Failure to submit a brief in support of the

objection may be deemed an abandonment of the

objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a

Case 1:06-cv-00596-CG-M Document 4 Filed 02/06/07 Page 6 of 7
7

Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can

be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the

magistrate judge finds that the tapes and original records in

this action are adequate for purposes of review. Any party

planning to object to this recommendation, but unable to pay the

fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial determination

that transcription is necessary is required before the United

States will pay the cost of the transcript.

DONE this 6th day of February, 2007.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00596-CG-M Document 4 Filed 02/06/07 Page 7 of 7