Nevils v. State of Tennessee et al
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 5/21/2013. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
GENE NEVILS
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al.
Defendants.
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
No. 3:13-0261
Judge Trauger
M E M O R A N D U M
The
plaintiff,
proceeding
pro
se,
is
an
inmate
at
the
Williamson County Jail in Franklin, Tennessee. He brings this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of Tennessee
and Williamson County, seeking injunctive relief and damages.
The plaintiff claims that his civil rights are being violated
during the course of criminal proceedings in Williamson County.
More specifically, he alleges that the trial judge has violated his
rights by refusing to reduce the amount of a bond needed to be
released from custody. In addition, the plaintiff believes that he
is not receiving the effective assistance of counsel.
The Eleventh Amendment bars a suit in federal court by a
citizen against a state or its agencies unless the state has
expressly consented to suit by waiving its sovereign immunity or
Congress has clearly overridden that immunity. Pennhurst State
School and Hospital v. Halderman, 104 S.Ct. 900, 908 (1984); Will
v. Michigan Department of State Police, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2312
(1989).
Congress has not overridden a state's sovereign immunity to
civil rights complaints. Moreover, the State of Tennessee has not
consented
to
waive
its
immunity
to
such
actions.
Berndt
v.
Tennessee, 796 F.2d 879 (6th Cir.1986). Therefore, faced with the
defendant's sovereign immunity, the plaintiff has failed to allege
an actionable claim against the State of Tennessee for which relief
can be granted.
The plaintiff also contends that Williamson County is liable
for the violation of his rights. However, for Williamson County to
be liable, the plaintiff would have to allege and prove that his
constitutional
rights
were
violated
pursuant
to
a
“policy
statement, ordinance, regulation or decision officially adopted and
promulgated”
by
the
county.
Monell
v.
Department
of
Social
Services, 436 U.S. 658, 689-690 (1978). No such allegation appears
in the complaint. Consequently, the plaintiff has failed to state
an actionable claim against Williamson County.
In the absence of an actionable claim, the Court is obliged to
dismiss the complaint sua sponte. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
An appropriate order will be entered.
____________________________
Aleta A. Trauger
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?