Al-Ameen v. Houston County Jail et al (INMATE1)

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that (1) the plf's claims against the Houston County Jail be dismissed prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); (2) the Houston County Jail be dismissed as a def in this cause of action; (3) this case, with respect to the plf's claims against defs Bonin, Richardson, Moore & Moon be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. Objections to R&R due by 12/22/2005. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 12/9/05. (djy, )

Al-Ameen v. Houston County Jail et al (INMATE1)

Doc. 3

Case 1:05-cv-01146-MHT-CSC

Document 3

Filed 12/09/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA S O U T H E R N DIVISION M U H A M M A D AL-AMEEN, f .k .a ., TERRY D. RIVERS, Plaintiff, v. H O U S T O N COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C I V I L ACTION NO. 1:05-CV-1146-T

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE T h is is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which the plaintiff challenges actions taken a g a in s t him during his confinement in the Houston County Jail. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that the Houston County Jail sh o u ld be dismissed from this cause of action prior to service of process in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).1 D IS C U S S IO N T h e plaintiff names the Houston County Jail as a defendant in this cause of action. A county jail is not a legal entity subject to suit or liability under section 1983. Cf. Dean v.

A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint 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, regardless of the payment of a filing fee, 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).

1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:05-cv-01146-MHT-CSC

Document 3

Filed 12/09/2005

Page 2 of 3

B a r b e r, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992). In light of the foregoing, the court concludes th a t the plaintiff's claims against the Houston County Jail are due to be dismissed. Id. CONCLUSION A c c o rd in g ly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: 1 . The plaintiff's claims against the Houston County Jail be dismissed prior to service o f process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 2. The Houston County Jail be dismissed as a defendant in this cause of action. 3. This case, with respect to the plaintiff's claims against defendants Bonin,

R ich a rd so n , Moore and Moon, be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate p ro c e e d in g s . It is further ORDERED that on or before December 22, 2005 the parties may file objections to the R e c o m m e n d a tio n . Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive o r general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised th a t this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the D is tric t Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

2

Case 1:05-cv-01146-MHT-CSC

Document 3

Filed 12/09/2005

Page 3 of 3

a tta c k in g on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the D is tric t Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

W a in w r ig h t, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 3 3 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en b a n c ), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. D o n e this 9 th day of December, 2005.

/s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY C H IE F UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3