Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00652/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00652-0/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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LANELLE JACKSON, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-00652-WS-B

BALDWIN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL :

CENTER, et al.,

:

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a federal prison inmate proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis, filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 together

with a Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees. (Doc. 2).

This action has been referred to the undersigned for appropriate

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

72.2(c)(4). Upon careful review, it is recommended that this

action be dismissed with prejudice, prior to service of process, as

frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I). 

I. Complaint (Doc. 1). 

In his Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants, Medical

Staff/Administrators of the Baldwin County Corrections Center

(“Baldwin Jail Medical Staff”), Medical Staff/Administrators of the

Mobile County Metro Jail (“Metro Jail Medical Staff”), Medical

Staff/Administrators of the Federal Transfer Center, Oklahoma City,

Oklahoma (“Oklahoma City Medical Staff”), and Medical

Case 1:05-cv-00652-WS-B Document 25 Filed 07/31/07 Page 1 of 9
 1

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 (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.

2

Staff/Administrators of the Metropolitan Correctional Center,

Chicago, Illinois (“Metropolitan Medical Staff”). Plaintiff

alleges that these Defendants denied him medical attention or

failed to provide him with adequate medical treatment for constant

stomach pain, coughing up blood, blood in his stool, pain in his

back and neck, or his rash. For relief, Plaintiff seeks damages

and his freedom.

II. Standards of Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court

is required to review Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B).1 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, or the claim seeks to enforce a right that clearly

does not exist. Id. 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

Case 1:05-cv-00652-WS-B Document 25 Filed 07/31/07 Page 2 of 9
3

complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose

factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Id. Moreover, a

complaint may be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted “only if

it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts

that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Hishon v.

King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2232 (1984)

(citation omitted); see Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490

(11th Cir. 1997) (noting that § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)’s language tracks

the language of Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)). Dismissal for failure to

state a claim is also warranted when a successful affirmative

defense, such as a statute of limitations, appears on the face of

a complaint. Jones v. Bock, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 127 S.Ct. 910, 920-

21 (2007). 

III. Discussion.

A. Defendants Baldwin Jail Medical Staff and Metro Jail 

Medical Staff. 

The jail in Baldwin County and the jail in Mobile County are

operated by each county’s sheriff’s department. ALA. CODE § 14-6-1

(1995) (under Alabama law, the sheriff, or a jailer who is

appointed by the sheriff, “has the legal custody and charge of the

jail in his county and all prisoners committed thereto”). An

Alabama sheriff’s department, however, lacks the capacity to be

sued. Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992); King v.

Case 1:05-cv-00652-WS-B Document 25 Filed 07/31/07 Page 3 of 9
4

Colbert County, 620 So.2d 623, 626 (Ala. 1993); White v.

Birchfield, 582 So.2d 1085, 1087 (Ala. 1991). Thus, it follows

that the jail as a subdivision of a sheriff’s department likewise

lacks the capacity to be sued. Russell v. Mobile County Sheriff,

No. Civ. A. 00-0410-CB-C, 2000 WL 1848470, at *2 (S.D. Ala. Nov.

20, 2000) (unpublished); Avant v. Rice, Nos. 91-748-CIV-T-17A, 91-

1011-CIV-T-17C, & 91-1012-CIV-T-17A, 1992 WL 359633, at *1 (M.D.

Ala. Nov. 19, 1992) (unpublished); see Marsden v. Federal Bureau of

Prisons, 856 F. Supp. 832, 836 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (finding a jail is

not an entity subject to suit); see also House v. Cook County Dept.

of Corrections, No. 98 C 788, 1998 WL 89095, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Feb.

13, 1998) (holding the jail is not an entity amenable to suit). 

Likewise, the medical staff at a jail is a subdivision of the

jail and is not a distinct legal entity that is subject to suit,

nor is it a “person” for § 1983 purposes. Harris v. Fairman, No.

94 C 3883, 1995 WL 151806, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 1995) (jail

medical staff); Jefferys v. Department of Corrections, No. 94 CIV

2942 (VLB), 1994 WL 702752, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 1994) (jail

medical staff); Johnson v. Sheahan, No. 94 C 618, 1994 WL 494803,

at *1 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 8, 1994) (jail medical staff); Merrell v.

Dukes, No. 85-2556, 1985 WL 3566, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 1985)

(prison medical staff). 

In order to bring a viable § 1983 action, the defendant sued

must be an entity that is subject to being sued. Dean, 951 F.2d at

Case 1:05-cv-00652-WS-B Document 25 Filed 07/31/07 Page 4 of 9
 2

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999(1971).

5

1214. The capacity of a party to be sued is “determined by the law

of the state in which the district court is held. . . .”

Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(b); see Dean, 951 F.2d at 1214. The Baldwin Jail

Medical Staff and the Metro Jail Medical Staff are a part of the

respective jail’s subdivision and as such, are not suable entities

and are not “persons” for § 1983 purposes. Accordingly, the Court

finds that Defendants Baldwin Jail Medical Staff and Metro Jail

Medical Staff are not suable entities and should therefore be

dismissed because the claims against them are due to be dismissed

as frivolous.

B. Defendants Oklahoma City Medical Staff and Metropolitan 

 Medical Staff.

The Federal Transfer Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and the

Metropolitan Correctional Center, Chicago, Illinois are both

federal institutions. Provencio-Barraza v. United States Marshals

Service, No. CIV-06-1225-T, 2007 WL 315362, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Jan.

31, 2007) (Oklahoma City); Martin v. Quinlan, No. 92 C 3068, 1992

WL 117110, at *1 (W.D. Ill. May 21, 1992) (Chicago). § 1983

actions, which require state action, are not available against

federal entities. Instead, the action that may be brought against

a federal entity is a Bivens action.2

 Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S.

527, 535, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1913,(1981) (in order to state a claim

Case 1:05-cv-00652-WS-B Document 25 Filed 07/31/07 Page 5 of 9
 3

Alternate bases for the dismissal of Defendants Oklahoma City

Medical Staff and Metropolitan Medical Staff are: (1) Plaintiff’s

§ 1983 action requires state action but was filed against federal

Defendants and, therefore, it is meritless, see Parratt, supra,

and (2) venue for these Defendants is not proper in this district

because they are not located in this district, see 28 U.S.C. §

1391(b). (The undersigned notes that Plaintiff’s allegations

against the federal Defendants in the main body of the

Recommendation were provided a liberal construction and the

claims were addressed as Bivens claims, but they nevertheless

fail.) 

6

under § 1983, “the conduct complained of was committed by a person

acting under color of state law”); overruled on other grounds by

Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31, 106 S.Ct. 662, 664

(1986). Bivens’ goal is deterring “individual officers from

committing constitutional violations.” Correctional Services Corp.

v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 70, 122 S.Ct. 515, 521 (2001). As a

result, a federal prisoner “may bring a Bivens claim against the

offending individual officer . . . [however,] [t]he prisoner may

not bring a Bivens claim against the officer’s employer, the United

States, or the BOP.” Id. at 72, 122 S.Ct. at 522. A claim against

a medical department at a federal facility in a Bivens type action;

however, it is not recognized because it is not a claim against an

individual. Provencio-Barraza, 2007 WL 315362, at *4.

Accordingly, Defendants Oklahoma City Medical Staff and

Metropolitan Medical Staff are entities that are not subject to

suit in a Bivens action.3 

Case 1:05-cv-00652-WS-B Document 25 Filed 07/31/07 Page 6 of 9
7

IV. Conclusion.

Based upon the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that this

action be dismissed with prejudice, prior to service of process, as

frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The attached

sheet contains important information regarding objections to the

Report and Recommendation. 

DONE this 31st day of July 2007.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00652-WS-B Document 25 Filed 07/31/07 Page 7 of 9
8

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). 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,

in part, 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

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

be appealed.

Case 1:05-cv-00652-WS-B Document 25 Filed 07/31/07 Page 8 of 9
9

2. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing

party may submit a brief opposing the objection within ten (10)

days of being served with a copy of the statement of objection. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

3. 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.

Case 1:05-cv-00652-WS-B Document 25 Filed 07/31/07 Page 9 of 9