Araiza v. Elmore County Commission et al (INMATE2)

Filing 4

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; Plaintiff's claims against the Elmore County Commission be DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii); The Elmore County Commission b e DISMISSED as a defendant to this cause of action; and; This case, with respect to Plaintiff's claims against the remaining defendants, be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. Objections to R&R due by 3/15/2010. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 3/1/2010. (jg, ) Modified on 3/1/2010 clarify text (jg, ).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ____________________________ C O D Y ALLEN ARAIZA, P l a in tif f , v. E L M O R E COUNTY COMMISSION, e t al., D e f e n d a n ts . ____________________________ * * * * * 2:10-CV-163-ID (WO) 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 at the Elmore County Jail, filed this 42 U.S.C. 1983 a c tio n on February 25, 2010. Plaintiff asserts allegation of excessive force and u n c o n stitu tio n a l conditions of confinement against the named defendants for which he seeks m o n e tar y damages. Named as defendants are the Elmore County Commission, Sheriff Bill F ra n k lin , Sergeant Fox, Officer Potts, and Officer Easterling. Upon review of the complaint, th e court concludes that Plaintiff's claims against the Elmore County Commission should be d is m is s e d prior to service of process in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B )(i) and (iii).1 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 I . DISCUSSION P lain tiff names the Elmore County Commission as a defendant. County c o m m is s io n e rs cannot be held liable for actions undertaken during the daily operation of a c o u n ty jail. Turquitt v. Jefferson County, Alabama, 137 F.3d 1285, 1289 (11 th Cir. 1998). M o re o v e r, county commissioners are entitled to absolute immunity under 1983 for claims a ris in g from the appropriation of funds for the maintenance of a county jail. Woods v. G a r n e r, 132 F.3d 1417, 1420 (11 th Cir. 1998) ("The budgetary decisions made by defendants f o r funding the county--including the jail--are legislative acts protected by legislative im m u n ity."). Thus, Plaintiff's claims against the Elmore County Commission are subject to s u m m a ry dismissal upon application of the directives of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and ( i i i) . 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 the Elmore County Commission be DISMISSED with p re ju d ic e prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii); 2 . The Elmore County Commission be DISMISSED as a defendant to this cause of a c tio n ; and 3 . This case, with respect to Plaintiff's claims against the remaining defendants, be re f e rr e d back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. 2 It is further ORDERED that on or before March 15, 2010 the parties may file objections to this 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 a party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or g e n e ra l objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that th is 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 is t r i c 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 1 st day of March 2010. /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. WALLACE CAPEL, JR. U N IT E 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?