Dorsey v. Anthony Clark, et al (INMATE2)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that Plaintiff's claims against Judge McCalma and the Municipal Court for Andalusia, AL be Dismissed under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) ; that defendants McCalma and the Municipal Court of Andalusia, AL be Dismissed as parties to the complaint ; that this case be referred back to the undersigned for additional proceedings ; Objections to R&R due by 1/26/2006. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 1/13/2006. (ag, )
Dorsey v. Anthony Clark, et al (INMATE2)
Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION __________________________________ J O E MITCHELL DORSEY P l a in tif f , v. M U N I C IP A L COURT A N D A L U S IA , et al., * * * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:050CV-1239-F (WO) * * D e f e n d a n ts . __________________________________ R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE P la in tif f , an inmate incarcerated in the Covington County Jail located in Andalusia, A l a b a m a , filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on December 30, 2005. He states that on D e c e m b e r 13, 2005 the Municipal Court of Andalusia, Alabama, sentenced him to six m o n th s in the Covington County jail for third degree domestic violence. Less than two weeks in to his stay at the county jail, Plaintiff asserts that he fell face first onto and/or through a s ta ir rail which resulted in a back injury. Since his return from the hospital, Plaintiff c o m p la in s that he has been denied adequate medical care for continuing back pain. Plaintiff f ile s this action for damages against the Municipal Court of Andalusia, Alabama, Judge M c C a lm a , Sheriff Anthony Clark, and Annett King. Upon review of the pleadings, the court concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff's claims a g a in s t the Municipal Court of Andalusia and Judge McCalma is appropriate under 28 U.S.C.
Page 2 of 4
I . DISCUSSION A . The Municipal Court of Andalusia P la in tif f names the Municipal Court of Andalusia as a defendant. A state court is not a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Moity v. Louisiana State Bar Association, 4 1 4 F. Supp. 180, 182 (E.D. La. 1976), aff'd, 537 F.2d 1141 (5 th Cir. 1976). Dismissal of P lain tiff 's complaint against the Municipal Court of Andalusia is, therefore, appropriate u n d er 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I).
B . Judge McCalma To the extent the conduct about which Plaintiff complains with respect to Judge M c C a lm a emanate from judicial actions taken by him in his capacity as a judge for the M u n icip a l Court of Andalusia, he is due to be dismissed. The law is well-settled that state ju d g e s are absolutely immune from damages liability when sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a c tio n s taken in the course of their judicial duties. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978); P a ise y v. Vitale in and for Broward County, 807 F.2d 889 (11 th Cir. 1986). Thus, Plaintiff's
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 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).
Page 3 of 4
r e q u e s t for damages against Judge McCalma is "based on an indisputably meritless legal th e o ry" and is, therefore, subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Neitzke v . Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
I I . CONCLUSION A c c o rd in g ly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: 1 . Plaintiff's claims against Judge McCalma and the Municipal Court for Andalusia, A laba m a, be DISMISSED under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 2 . Defendants McCalma and the Municipal Court for Andalusia, Alabama, be D IS M IS S E D as parties to the complaint; and 3 . This case be referred back to the undersigned for additional proceedings. It 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 ti o n on or before January 26, 2006. Any objections filed must specifically id e n tif y the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, co n clus ive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are a d v is e d that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not a p p e a la b le . F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the M a g is tra te Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District
Page 4 of 4
C o u rt of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual f in d in g s in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain e rr 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 ic h a r d , 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the d e c is io n s of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on S e p te m b e r 30, 1981. D o n e this 13 th day of January, 2006.
/s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY C H IE F UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?