Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00068/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00068-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Delacey Antonio Holley
Plaintiff
Mobile County Metro Jail
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DELACEY ANTONIO HOLLEY, #243606,:

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-0068-WS-M

MOBILE COUNTY METRO JAIL, :

Defendant. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a Mobile County Metro Jail inmate proceeding pro

se and in forma pauperis, filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. 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). It is recommended that this action be dismissed

with prejudice as frivolous, prior to service of process,

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

I. Complaint (Docs. 1 & 3). 

Plaintiff identified the Mobile County Metro Jail as the

sole Defendant to his action about the lack of a mat to sleep on

for three weeks from August 8, 2005, to August 24, 2005. 

Plaintiff alleges that he was only given a sheet and blanket

because the jail had no more mats according to the officer and

her supervisor. When the new mats arrived, Plaintiff received

one. Allegedly, sleeping on the hard floor without a mat has

caused Plaintiff back problems according to a doctor. In

addition, Plaintiff asserts that for one night he was placed in a

Case 1:06-cv-00068-WS-M Document 12 Filed 01/03/07 Page 1 of 5
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, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989), was unaltered. Bilal v.

Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1044,

122 S.Ct. 624, 151 L.Ed.2d 545 (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

cell that had blood on the walls.

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

Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court

is reviewing 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, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). A claim is frivolous as a

matter of law where the claim seeks to enforce a right that

clearly does not exist. Id. at 327, 109 S.Ct. at 1833. 

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, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984) (citing Conley v.

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80

(1957));see Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir.

1997) (noting that § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)’s language tracks the

Case 1:06-cv-00068-WS-M Document 12 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 5
3

language of Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)).

III. Discussion.

Liability under § 1983 can only be imposed against a person, 

Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1913, 68

L.Ed.2d 420 (1981), overruled on other grounds by Daniels v.

Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31, 106 S.Ct. 662, 664, 88 L.Ed.2d

662 (1986), or an entity that is capable of being sued. Dean v.

Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992). 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. 

 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. . . .” ALA. CODE

§ 14-6-1. Generally, a sheriff’s department operates a county

jail. However, an Alabama sheriff’s department lacks the

capacity to be sued. Dean, 951 F.2d at 1214; King v. Colbert

County, 620 So.2d 623, 626 (Ala. 1993); White v. Birchfield, 582

So.2d 1085, 1087 (Ala. 1991). Then, it follows that the jail

likewise lacks the capacity to be sued. Russell v. Mobile County

Sheriff, No. Civ. A. 00-0410-CB-C, 2000 WL 1848470 (S.D. Ala.

Nov. 20, 2000) (unpublished) (finding that the Mobile County Jail

is not a suable entity); Marsden v. Federal Bureau of Prisons,

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

Case 1:06-cv-00068-WS-M Document 12 Filed 01/03/07 Page 3 of 5
4

not an entity amenable to suit); House v. Cook County Dept. of

Corrections, No. 98 C 788, 1998 WL 89095 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 13,

1998) (unpublished) (same); May v. North County Detention

Facility, No. C 93-1180 BAC, 1993 WL 300290 (N.D. Cal. July 21,

1993) (unpublished) (same); see also Castillo v. Cook Co. Mail

Room Dept., 990 F.2d 304, 307 (7th Cir. 1993) (finding that

because the jail is not a suable entity, then it follows that the

subdivision, the mail room, is not a suable entity). 

Therefore, the Court determines that the Mobile County Metro

Jail is not a suable entity or a person for § 1983 purposes. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim against this Defendant is

frivolous as a matter of law. 

IV. Conclusion.

Based upon the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that

this action be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous, prior to

service of process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

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

Case 1:06-cv-00068-WS-M Document 12 Filed 01/03/07 Page 4 of 5
5

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

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 3rd day of January, 2007.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00068-WS-M Document 12 Filed 01/03/07 Page 5 of 5