Duckworth v. Randolph County Jail et al (JCINMATE2)

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Rodney D. Duckworth; that claims against Randolph County Jail and Judge Whaley be dismissed prior to service of process; that these defendants be dismissed as parties and this case referred back to the Mag. Judge for additional proceedings; Objections to R&R due by 8/17/2005. Signed by Judge Delores R. Boyd on 8/5/05. (ajr, )

Duckworth v. Randolph County Jail et al (JCINMATE2)

Doc. 3

Case 3:05-cv-00727-MHT-DRB

Document 3

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA E A S T ER N DIVISION _______________________________ R O D N E Y D. DUCKWORTH Plaintiff, v. RA ND OL PH COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants. _______________________________ * * * CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:05-CV-727-T (WO) * *

R E C O M M E N D A TI O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE P l a i n ti f f is currently incarcerated in the Randolph County Jail located in Wedowee, A l a b a m a . He filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint on August 3, 2005 alleging that the c o n d i t io n s of confinement in the jail are unconstitutional. Plaintiff seeks compensation for his pain and suffering due to the conditions under which he is housed. The named defendants i n c l u d e the Randolph County Jail, District Judge W. Patrick Whaley, Sheriff Jeff Fuller, C h i e f Shirley Johnson, and Captain Craig Davidson. Upon review of the complaint, the court c o n c l u d e s that dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against the Randolph County Jail and Judge W haley prior to service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:05-cv-00727-MHT-DRB

Document 3

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 2 of 4

I . DISCUSSION A. The Randolph County Jail T h e Randolph County Jail is not a legal entity and, therefore, is not subject to suit or liabi lity under § 1983. See Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11 th Cir. 1992). In light o f the foregoing, the court concludes that Plaintiff's claims against the Randolph County Jail are due to be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

B. The Honorable W. Patrick Whaley J u d g e Whaley is the district judge for the District Court for Randolph County. While t h e court cannot find any specific factual allegations brought against Judge Whaley in the i n s ta n t complaint, any attempt to sue this individual for actions taken by him in his capacity a s a district judge may not proceed. The law is well-settled that state judges are absolutely i m m u n e from damages liability when sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions taken in the c o u r s e of their judicial duties. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978); Paisey v. Vitale in and for Broward County, 807 F.2d 889 (11 th Cir. 1986).

CONCLUSION Ac cord ingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: 1. Plaintiff's claims against the Randolph County Jail and Judge Whlaey be

D I S M I S S E D with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C . § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii); 2

Case 3:05-cv-00727-MHT-DRB

Document 3

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 3 of 4

2 . The Randolph County Jail and Judge W haley be DISMISSED as parties to this c o m p l a i n t; and 3 . This case with respect to the remaining defendants be referred back to the und ersig ned 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 t i o n on or before August 17, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, c o n c l u s iv e or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are a d v i s e d that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not a p p e a l a b le . Failu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the M a g i s trate 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 err 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 5th day of August, 2005. 3

Case 3:05-cv-00727-MHT-DRB

Document 3

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 4 of 4

/ s / Delores R. Boyd D E L O R ES R. BOYD U N I TE D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4