Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-01239/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-01239-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 __________________________________

JOE MITCHELL DORSEY *

Plaintiff, *

v. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:050CV-1239-F

 (WO)

MUNICIPAL COURT *

ANDALUSIA, et al.,

*

Defendants.

 __________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated in the Covington County Jail located in Andalusia,

Alabama, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on December 30, 2005. He states that on

December 13, 2005 the Municipal Court of Andalusia, Alabama, sentenced him to six

months in the Covington County jail for third degree domestic violence. Less than two weeks

into his stay at the county jail, Plaintiff asserts that he fell face first onto and/or through a

stair rail which resulted in a back injury. Since his return from the hospital, Plaintiff

complains that he has been denied adequate medical care for continuing back pain. Plaintiff

files this action for damages against the Municipal Court of Andalusia, Alabama, Judge

McCalma, Sheriff Anthony Clark, and Annett King. 

Upon review of the pleadings, the court concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff's claims

against the Municipal Court of Andalusia and Judge McCalma is appropriate under 28 U.S.C.

Case 2:05-cv-01239-MEF-CSC Document 3 Filed 01/13/06 Page 1 of 4
 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). This screening 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 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).

2

§ 1915(e)(2)(B). 

1

I. DISCUSSION

A. The Municipal Court of Andalusia

Plaintiff names the Municipal Court of Andalusia as a defendant. A state court is not

a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Moity v. Louisiana State Bar Association,

414 F. Supp. 180, 182 (E.D. La. 1976), aff'd, 537 F.2d 1141 (5 Cir. 1976). Dismissal of th

Plaintiff's complaint against the Municipal Court of Andalusia is, therefore, appropriate

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I).

B. Judge McCalma

 To the extent the conduct about which Plaintiff complains with respect to Judge

McCalma emanate from judicial actions taken by him in his capacity as a judge for the

Municipal Court of Andalusia, he is due to be dismissed. The law is well-settled that state

judges are absolutely immune from damages liability when sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for

actions taken in the course of their judicial duties. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978);

Paisey v. Vitale in and for Broward County, 807 F.2d 889 (11 Cir. 1986). Thus, Plaintiff’s th

Case 2:05-cv-01239-MEF-CSC Document 3 Filed 01/13/06 Page 2 of 4
3

request for damages against Judge McCalma is “based on an indisputably meritless legal

theory” and is, therefore, subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Neitzke

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).

II. CONCLUSION

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

1. Plaintiff's claims against Judge McCalma and the Municipal Court for Andalusia,

Alabama, be DISMISSED under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i);

2. Defendants McCalma and the Municipal Court for Andalusia, Alabama, be

DISMISSED as parties to the complaint; and

3. This case be referred back to the undersigned for additional proceedings.

It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said

Recommendation on or before January 26, 2006. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. 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 recommendations in the

Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District

Case 2:05-cv-01239-MEF-CSC Document 3 Filed 01/13/06 Page 3 of 4
4

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual

findings in the report 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 th

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

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the th

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done this 13 day of January, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01239-MEF-CSC Document 3 Filed 01/13/06 Page 4 of 4