Bell v. Holder et al (INMATE 2)
ORDER that the court finds the 15 Objections to be without merit, and they are hereby OVERRULED; The court ADOPTS the 13 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; ORDERED that Plf's Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to 28 USC §1915(e)(2)(B)(i-ii). Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 3/8/2012. (wcl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
DARRIUS BELL, #149992,
ERIC HOLDER, JR., et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11cv488-WHA
This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #13)
and the Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. #15).
Plaintiff objects to the Recommendation that his § 1983 complaint be dismissed under §
1915(e)(2)(B). The primary claim presented by Plaintiff is that he is not being afforded
adequate mental health treatment. As explained in the Recommendation, "[o]ther than asserting
that his sex offender status is a recognized mental health issue, Plaintiff makes only conclusory
allegations that the current conditions of his confinement are depriving him of basic mental
health needs. Thus, while Plaintiff essentially couches his claim regarding a failure of the
Bullock Correctional Facility to provide inmates convicted of sex offenses with a sex offender
treatment program as a failure of the facility to provide mental health treatment, he does not
allege specific facts of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Further, while Plaintiff
maintains that the ADOC cannot be relieved of its obligation to provide adequate mental health
treatment to persons such as himself who are placed in prison solely as the result of a civil
statute, it is clear from the complaint and supporting documentation that Plaintiff was returned to
prison for violating the conditions of his parole (he received a separate charge for violating the
terms of the Alabama Community Notification Act - ACNA). He is not incarcerated pursuant to
any civil commitment.
Plaintiff also presented an equal protection claim based on the fact that he was issued a
disciplinary for failing to obey a direct order. Because Plaintiff failed to allege that he was
similarly situated with other prisoners who received more favorable treatment and that the
discriminatory treatment was based on some constitutionally protected interest, the Magistrate
Judge determined that Plaintiff's claim failed to state a viable equal protection claim. Plaintiff
changes the focus of his equal protection claim in his objection by now claiming that he is being
treated differently than juvenile sex offenders for whom sex offender treatment is mandated and
drug offenders who receive drug treatment help while incarcerated. Inmates themselves,
however, do not constitute a suspect or quasi-suspect class entitling such persons to strict
scrutiny of disparate government treatment. What Plaintiff essentially complains of (in his
amended complaints (Docs. #5 & 11) and his objection) is his disappointment in being returned
to prison on what he deems a mere technicality unworthy of re-incarceration as well as the fact
that he cannot administer an inmate-run sex offender self help program with impunity where he
fails to follow institutional rules. Plaintiff regards this conduct as actionable unequal treatment.
Nevertheless, Plaintiff does not allege that he has been subjected to any tangible unequal
treatment by Defendants' conduct such as their decision to discipline him being based upon a
constitutionally protected interest.
Thus, following an independent evaluation and de novo review of this case, the court
finds the objections to be without merit, and they are hereby OVERRULED. The court
ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of
process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i-ii).
DONE this 8th day of March, 2012.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?