Martin v. State of Alabama Department of Corrections et al (INMATE1)

Filing 5

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Mag Judge that: (1) the claims Martin presents against the State of Alabama Dept of Corrections be dismissed with prejudice prior to service of process in accordance wtih the provisions of 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); (2 ) the State of Alabama Dept of Corrections be dismissed from this cause of action; (3) this case, with respect to the claims lodged against the remaining defendants, be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings; Objections to R&R due by 5/14/2007. Signed by Judge Wallace Capel Jr. on 5/1/07. (djy, )

Martin v. State of Alabama Department of Corrections et al (INMATE1)

Doc. 5

Case 2:07-cv-00335-MEF-WC

Document 5

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION J O E BENOIT MARTIN, #208789, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

v.

C I V I L ACTION NO. 2:07-CV-335-MEF [W O ]

S T A T E OF ALABAMA DEPT. OF C O R R E C T IO N S , et al., Defendants.

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Joe Benoit Martin ["Martin"], a state inmate, c h a lle n g e s the defendants failure to protect him from attacks by a fellow inmate. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that dismissal of the plaintiff's c la im s against the State of Alabama Department of Corrections prior to service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).1 D IS C U S S IO N T h e plaintiff names the State of Alabama Department of Corrections as a defendant in this cause of action. The law is well-settled that state agencies are immune from suit, P a p a sa n v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986), and are not persons within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.

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).

1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:07-cv-00335-MEF-WC

Document 5

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 2 of 3

§ 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2309 (1 9 8 9 ). Thus, the plaintiff's claims against the State of Alabama Department of Corrections a r e frivolous as they are "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." Neitzke v. W illia m s, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).2 Such claims are therefore subject to dismissal pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). CONCLUSION A c c o rd in g ly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: 1. The claims Martin presents against the State of Alabama Department of

C o rre c tio n s be dismissed with prejudice prior to service of process in accordance with the p rov isio n s of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 2 . The State of Alabama Department of Corrections be dismissed from this cause of a c tio n . 3. This case, with respect to the claims lodged against the remaining defendants, be r e f e rr e d back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. It is further ORDERED that on or before May 14, 2007 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

Although Neitzke interpreted the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the predecessor to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the analysis contained therein remains applicable to the present statute.

2

2

Case 2:07-cv-00335-MEF-WC

Document 5

Filed 05/01/2007

Page 3 of 3

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 a tta c k in g on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the D i s t ric 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 d o w n prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. D o n e this 1 st day of May, 2007.

/ s / Wallace Capel, Jr. W A L L A C E CAPEL, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3