Ball v. Hill

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 12/4/15. (SAC )

Download PDF
FILED 2015 Dec-04 PM 03:58 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION JIM HENRY BALL, JR., } } } } } } } } } Plaintiff, v. ERIKA LYNN HILL, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-1909-WMA MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff filed this action on October 28, 2015, purportedly asserting violations of his rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, all stemming from a car accident involving plaintiff and defendant, a private citizen. (Doc. 1).1 Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis was granted on November 16, 2015. (Doc. 3). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss an action of a plaintiff proceeding “frivolous,” in forma pauperis if the action is “malicious,” or “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” To establish a viable claim under the statutes invoked by plaintiff, defendant must have been “a person acting under color of state law.” Nail v. Cmty. Action Agency of Calhoun Cty., 805 F.2d 1500, 1501 1 (11th Cir. 1986). Failure to allege state action Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint on December 2, 2015. (Doc. 4). Because the amendment would not cure the fatal jurisdictional flaws of plaintiff’s action, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion to amend as futile. deprives the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. Given that defendant is allegedly employed by Regions Bank and not affiliated with any governmental entity, plaintiff has failed to allege that defendant acted under color of state law. Accordingly, the aboveentitled action will be dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. A separate order will be entered. DONE this 4th day of December, 2015. _____________________________ WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR. 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?