Joiner v. Hayes et al (Inmate 2)

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Henry Joiner that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); Objections to R&R due by 6/7/2005. Signed by Judge Delores R. Boyd on 5/26/05. (vmc, )

Download PDF
Joiner v. Hayes et al (Inmate 2) Doc. 3 Case 2:05-cv-00478-MEF-DRB Document 3 Filed 05/26/2005 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ______________________________ H E N R Y JOINER Plaintiff, v. L E S HAYES, III, et al. , D efendants. * * * CIVIL AC T I O N NO. 2:05-CV-478-F WO * * ______________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE In this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, Henry Joiner, an inmate incarcerated in the Hale Co unty Jail in Greensboro, Alabama, challenges actions taken by the Honorable Les Hayes, III, a Montgomery Municipal Court Judge, with respect to criminal proceedings involving Plaintiff in 2002 and 2005. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Upon review of the com plaint, the court concludes that dismissal of this case prior to service of process is a p pr op ri at e under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B).1 DISCUSSION 1 A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint s c r e e n e d in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening procedure requires t h e court to dismiss a prisoner's civil action prior to service of process if it determines that the complaint is f r i v o l o u s , malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant w h o is imm u n e from such relief. 28 U . S . C . 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). Case 2:05-cv-00478-MEF-DRB Document 3 Filed 05/26/2005 Page 2 of 3 1. The Honorable Les Hayes, III. T h e court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's complaints concerning various legal p r o c e e d in g s held before the Montgomery Municipal Court in Montgomery, Alabama. The a l l eg a t i o n s Plaintiff makes against Judge Hayes relate to matters submitted before him as a p r e s id i n g judge well as rulings issued by him in his judicial capacity during legal proceedings o v e r which he had jurisdiction. The law is well established that judges are absolutely i m m u n e from civil liability for acts taken pursuant to their judicial authority. Forrester v. W hite , 484 U. S. 219, 227-229 (1988); Paisey v. Vitale in and for Broward County, 807 F.2d 8 8 9 (11th Cir. 1986); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978). Accordingly, Plaintiff's claim f o r monetary damages for actions undertaken by Judge Hayes is "based on an indisputably m e r i t l e s s legal theory" and is, therefore, subject to dismissal in accordance with the p r o v i s io n s of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii). See Neitzke v Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). 2 . The Montgomery Municipal Court P lain tiff names the Montgomery Municipal Court as a defendant. The law is e s t a b li s h e d that courts are not persons within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 1983. See Moity v. Louisiana State Bar Association, 414 F. Supp. 180, 182 (E.D. La. 1976), aff'd, 537 F.2d 1 1 4 1 (5 th Cir. 1976). Dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint against the Montgomery Municipal Co urt is, therefore, appropriate under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). CONCLUSION 2 Case 2:05-cv-00478-MEF-DRB Document 3 Filed 05/26/2005 Page 3 of 3 A c c o r d i n g l y , it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that Pl ai nt iff 's complaint be dismissed with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C . 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). I t is further O R D E R E D that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said R e c o m m e n d a t i o n on or before June 7, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically identify t h e findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, conclusive o r general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised t h a t this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. Failu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the M agistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Cou rt of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual f i n d in g s in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain e r r o r or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See Stein v . Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of P r i c h a r d , 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the d e c i s io n s of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on S e p t e m b e r 30, 1981. D o n e this 26th day of May, 2005. /s/ Delores R. Boyd D E L O R ES R. BOYD U N I TE D 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?