Source: http://al.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150505_0000546.MAL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-07 18:13:37
Document Index: 324781646

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

| Joslyn v. Corizon Medical Services
Joslyn v. Corizon Medical Services
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL JOSLYN, AIS #266517, Plaintiff,v.CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES, et al., Defendants.
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Christopher Michael Joslyn ("Joslyn"), an indigent state inmate, alleges that medical personnel at Staton Correctional Facility acted with deliberate indifference to his mental health condition. Joslyn names Corizon Medical Services, the contract medical care provider for the state prison system, Staton Correctional Facility, Nurse Long and the Alabama Department of Corrections as defendants in this cause of action.
Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that the claims lodged against Staton Correctional Facility and the Alabama Department of Corrections are subject to dismissal prior to service of process on such defendants in accordance with the provisions of provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).[1]
A. Staton Correctional Facility
A correctional facility "is not a legal entity... subject to suit or liability under section 1983." See Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992). Thus, the claims presented by Joslyn against Staton Correctional Facility provide no basis for relief and are due to be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
B. The Alabama Department of Corrections
The law is well-settled that a state agency or department, as an extension of the State, is absolutely immune from suit. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986) (Unless the State or its agency consents to suit, the plaintiff cannot proceed against such defendant as the action is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment and "[t]his bar exists whether the relief sought is legal or equitable."). In addition, a department of the State is "not a person within the meaning of § 1983" and, therefore, is not subject to liability in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65 (1989); Carey v. Wynn, et al., Case No. 07-CV-1106-MHT-TFM (M.D. Ala. Feb. 24, 2011), aff'd on appeal (11th Cir. June 10, 2011) - Doc. No. 116 at 7. Any claims lodged against the Alabama Department of Corrections are therefore frivolous as such claims are "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).[2] Consequently, the claims presented by Joslyn against the Alabama Department of Corrections are subject to summary dismissal in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
1. The plaintiff's claims against Staton Correctional Facility and the Alabama Department of Corrections be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
2. Staton Correctional Facility and the Alabama Department of Corrections be dismissed as defendants in this cause of action.
3. This case, with respect to the allegations set forth against Corizon Medical Services and Nurse Long, be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings.
ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said Recommendation on or before May 19, 2015. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. 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.