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, )

Download PDF
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

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?