Davis v. Lake Village City Jail et al

Filing 11

ORDER approving and adopting the 7 Recommendation in part; dismissing without prejudice Davis's request for immediate release; allowing Davis's request for monetary damages to proceed; dismissing the Lake Village City Jail and the Ashley County Detention Center as improper Defendants; directing the Clerk of the Court to prepare summons for the remaining defendants; directing the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of the 2 Complaint and summons on defendants without prepayment of fees and costs; referring 10 Plaintiff's motions to extend time and to appoint counsel to Judge Ray for decision; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 8/10/2017. (mef)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION

JOHNNY DAVIS
V.

PLAINTIFF
4:17CV00164 SWW/JTR

LAKE VILLAGE CITY JAIL, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Recommendation submitted by United States
Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray and the filed objections. After carefully considering
these documents and making a de novo review of the record in this case, the
Recommendation is approved and adopted in part. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED
that:
1.

Davis's request for immediate release is dismissed without prejudice.

2.

Davis's request for monetary damages may proceed.

3.

The Lake Village City Jail and the Ashley County Detention Center are

hereby DISMISSED as improper Defendants.1
4.

Service is appropriate for the remaining defendants. The Clerk of the

Court shall prepare summons for these defendants, and the United States Marshal is

1

It is well settled that a jail is not a legal entity amenable to suit in a 1983 action. See Owens v. Scott Cnty. Jail, 328
F.3d 1026, 1027 (8th Cir. 2003);Williams v. Pulaski Cnty. Det. Facility, Case No. 07-3851, 2008 WL 2079104 (8th
Cir. May 19, 2008) (unpublished opinion); De La Garza v. Kandiyohi Cnty. Jail, Case No. 01-1966, 2001 WL
987542 (8th Cir. Aug. 30, 2001) (unpublished opinion).

1

directed to serve a copy of the complaint and summons on defendants without
prepayment of fees and costs.
5.

Plaintiff’s motions to extend time and to appoint counsel [ECF No. 10]

are referred to Judge Ray for decision.
6.

It is CERTIFIED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(a)(3), that an in forma

pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith.
Dated this 10th day of August, 2017.

/s/Susan Webber Wright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2