Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_08-cv-00569/USCOURTS-almd-3_08-cv-00569-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gene Coggins
Plaintiff
State of Alabama
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

GENE COGGINS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:08cv569-MHT

) (WO)

STATE OF ALABAMA, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION

The court now has before it the motion to proceed in

forma pauperis filed by plaintiff Gene Coggins. 

It is well-established that a two-step procedure

should be followed in processing a pro se complaint filed

in forma pauperis. 

“First, the district court should

determine whether the plaintiff

satisfies the economic eligibility

criterion under [28 U.S.C. §] 1915(a).

Upon a finding of economic

justification, the court should allow

the complaint to be docketed without

prepayment of fees. Second, once leave

has been granted, [28 U.S.C. §] 1915(d)

allows the district court to dismiss the

complaint prior to service of process if

it determines the complaint to be

frivolous or malicious and spare the

Case 3:08-cv-00569-MHT-CSC Document 4 Filed 07/21/08 Page 1 of 3
* In Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th

Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit Court of

Appeals adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions

of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the

close of business on September 30, 1981.

2

defendant the inconvenience and expense

of answering a frivolous complaint.”

Woodall v. Foti, 648 F.2d 268, 271 (5th Cir. 1981) (per

curiam).*

 See also Procup v. Strickland, 760 F.2d 1107,

1114 (11th Cir. 1985). The motion filed by Coggins

satisfies the economic eligibility criterion of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a). Accordingly, the case may be filed without

prepayment of fees.

In his complaint, Coggins alleges civil rights

violations against defendant State of Alabama. However,

the State of Alabama is immune from suit. See Alabama v.

Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 781-82 (1978) (“[T]he Eleventh

Amendment prohibits federal courts from entertaining

suits by private parties against States and their

agencies.”); see also Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 337

(1979); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1974).

Case 3:08-cv-00569-MHT-CSC Document 4 Filed 07/21/08 Page 2 of 3
Accordingly, Coggins’s complaint is dismissed before

service on the State of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). See Nietzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319 (1989); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992).

An appropriate judgment will be entered.

DONE, this the 21st day of July, 2008.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-00569-MHT-CSC Document 4 Filed 07/21/08 Page 3 of 3