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