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, ).

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