Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_09-cv-00606/USCOURTS-almd-3_09-cv-00606-1/pdf.json

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

---

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).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

 _____________________________

SEAN M. CARTER * 

Plaintiff, *

 v. * 3:09-CV-606-ID

 (WO)

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, *

et al.,

Defendants. *

 _____________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Lee County Detention Center, files this 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Defendants’ failed to protect him from an inmate assault.

Plaintiff names as one of the defendants the Alabama Department of Corrections. Upon

review of the complaint, the court concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint against

the Alabama Department of Corrections prior to service of process is appropriate under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1

 I. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s complaint against the Alabama Department of Corrections [“ADOC”] is

due to be dismissed. The ADOC is not subject to suit or liability under § 1983. The Eleventh

Case 3:09-cv-00606-ID-WC Document 6 Filed 07/20/09 Page 1 of 3
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 ADOC 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).

 II. CONCLUSION

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

1. Plaintiff’s complaint against the Alabama Department of Corrections be

DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the directives of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I) - (iii);

2. The Alabama Department of Corrections be DISMISSED as a party to the

complaint; and

3. This case with respect to the remaining defendants be referred back to the

undersigned for further proceedings. 

 It is further

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

Recommendation on or before August 3, 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.

Case 3:09-cv-00606-ID-WC Document 6 Filed 07/20/09 Page 2 of 3
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

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 20 day of July, 2009. th

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00606-ID-WC Document 6 Filed 07/20/09 Page 3 of 3