Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_09-cv-00651/USCOURTS-almd-3_09-cv-00651-2/pdf.json

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

---

Since June 18, 2009 Plaintiff has filed in this court six complaints under § 1983. 

1

A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint 2

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).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

 _____________________________

SEAN M. CARTER * 

Plaintiff, *

 v. * 3:09-CV-651-MEF

 (WO)

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS - *

HEADQUARTERS,

*

Defendant.

 _____________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Lee County Detention Center, files this

complaint with the court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 once again alleging a violation of

rights, privileges, or immunities afforded him under the Constitution or laws of the United

States. Plaintiff names the Department of Corrections Headquarters as the defendant. 1

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that

dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint prior to service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B).2

Case 3:09-cv-00651-MEF-WC Document 5 Filed 07/16/09 Page 1 of 4
 I. DISCUSSION

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he is being forced into practices against his

beliefs where the named defendant is “[k]nown for forcing . . meat . . on plaintiff daily . . .

along with forcing plaintiff into cutting his organ (hair) which is forbidden in the Holy Bible

. . . Kilby an entity of ‘the department’ is known and have a history of beating, whipping,

hanging, and killing inmates as well as doing worst [sic] to inmates for their belief.” (Doc.

No. 1 at 3.) 

Plaintiff’s complaint against the Alabama Department of Corrections Headquarters

[“ADOC”] is due to be dismissed. The ADOC 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. Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984).

In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that Plaintiff's complaint against the Alabama

Department of Corrections Headquarters is due to be dismissed pursuant to the provisions

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327

(1989).

Even had Plaintiff named a proper defendant, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff’s

allegations appear to concern fears about what may occur if and/or when is transferred to the

custody of the ADOC. Jurisdiction cannot be premised upon mere speculation. Cotterall

v. Paul, 755 F.2d 777, 780 (11 Cir. 1985). Moreover, Plaintiff’s mere supposition that th

he may at some time in the future receive unfavorable treatment by prison custodians is

insufficient to state a claim on which relief may be granted in a § 1983 action. Conner v.

Case 3:09-cv-00651-MEF-WC Document 5 Filed 07/16/09 Page 2 of 4
Sticher, 801 F.2d 1266, 1268 (11 Cir. 1986) (plaintiff’s subjective belief harm may occur th

fails to implicate a constitutionally protected interest); Carter v. Heard, 593 F.2d 10 (5th

Cir. 1979) (“[T]he injury which his pleadings contemplate is fancied, not real; prospective,

not actual; and imagined, not threatened.”). Thus, to the extent Plaintiff’s complaint

alleges claims of possible future adverse action, such claims are subject to dismissal in

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as they are purely

speculative and fail to implicate any constitutional right to which Plaintiff is entitled. 

 II. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s

complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the

directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) - (iii). 

 It is further

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

Recommendation on or before July 29, 2009. Any objections 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 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

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

Case 3:09-cv-00651-MEF-WC Document 5 Filed 07/16/09 Page 3 of 4
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 16 day of July, 2009. th

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00651-MEF-WC Document 5 Filed 07/16/09 Page 4 of 4