Henderson v. Wright et al (INMATE2)

Filing 5

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that Plaintiff's claims against the Randolph County Commissioners 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); that Defendants Wright and t he Randolph County Commissioners be DISMISSED as parties to this cause of action; that this case, with respect to Plaintiff's claims against the remaining defendants, be referred back to the magistrate judge for appropriate proceedings. Objections to R&R due by 6/5/2007. Signed by Judge Wallace Capel Jr. on 5/23/2007. (cc, ) Modified on 5/23/2007 to reflect that this was mailed to Commissioner Lathonia Wright and Randolph County Commissioners(cc, ).

Download PDF
Henderson v. Wright et al (INMATE2) Doc. 5 Case 3:07-cv-00452-MEF-WC Document 5 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION _____________________________ D A N N Y LEE HENDERSON P l a in tif f , v. L A T H O N IA J. WRIGHT, C O M M IS S IO N E R , et al., D e f e n d a n ts . _____________________________ R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE T h is is a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action in which Plaintiff, Danny Henderson, challenges the m e d ica l care and conditions of confinement to which he is subjected in the Randolph County J a il. Plaintiff requests declaratory and injunctive relief. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that Plaintiff's claims against C o m m is s io n e r Lathonia Wright and all other Randolph County Commissioners 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 * * * * * 3:07-CV-452-MEF (WO) 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 Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:07-cv-00452-MEF-WC Document 5 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 2 of 3 I . DISCUSSION C o u n ty commissioners cannot be held liable for actions undertaken during the daily o p e ra tio n of a county jail. Turquitt v. Jefferson County, Alabama, 137 F.3d 1285, 1289 (11 th C ir. 1998). Moreover, county commissioners are entitled to absolute immunity under 1983 f o r claims arising from the appropriation of funds for the maintenance of a county jail. W o o d s v. Garner, 132 F.3d 1417, 1420 (11 th Cir. 1998) ("The budgetary decisions made by d e f en d a n ts for funding the county--including the jail--are legislative acts protected by le g is la tiv e immunity."). Thus, Plaintiff's claims against the commissioners of Randolph C o u n ty are subject to summary dismissal pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B )(I) and (iii). 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 Randolph County Commissioners be DISMISSED w ith prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(I) and (iii). 2. Defendants Wright and the Randolph County Commissioners be DISMISSED as p a rtie s to this cause of action. 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. It is further 2 Case 3:07-cv-00452-MEF-WC Document 5 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 3 of 3 O R D E R E D that on or before June 5, 2007 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 i s 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 23 n d day of May 2007. / s / Wallace Capel, Jr. W A L L A C E 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?