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, )

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?