Dorsey v. Anthony Clark, Et Al (INMATE2) - Document No. 3

Dorsey v. Anthony Clark, et al (INMATE2) Doc.
3
Case 2:05-cv-01239-MEF-CSC Document 3 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
__________________________________
JOE MITCHELL DORSEY *
Plaintiff, *
v. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:050CV-1239-F

(WO)
MUNICIPAL COURT *
ANDALUSIA, et al.,
*
Defendants.
__________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated in the Covington County Jail located in Andalusia,
Alabama, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on December 30, 2005. He states that on
December 13, 2005 the Municipal Court of Andalusia, Alabama, sentenced him to six
months in the Covington County jail for third degree domestic violence. Less than two weeks
into his stay at the county jail, Plaintiff asserts that he fell face first onto and/or through a
stair rail which resulted in a back injury. Since his return from the hospital, Plaintiff
complains that he has been denied adequate medical care for continuing back pain. Plaintiff
files this action for damages against the Municipal Court of Andalusia, Alabama, Judge
McCalma, Sheriff Anthony Clark, and Annett King.
Upon review of the pleadings, the court concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff's claims
against the Municipal Court of Andalusia and Judge McCalma is appropriate under 28 U.S.C.
Dockets.Justia.com
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).1
I. DISCUSSION
A. The Municipal Court of Andalusia
Plaintiff names the Municipal Court of Andalusia as a defendant. A state court is not
a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Moity v. Louisiana State Bar Association,
414 F. Supp. 180, 182 (E.D. La. 1976), aff'd, 537 F.2d 1141 (5 th Cir. 1976). Dismissal of
Plaintiff's complaint against the Municipal Court of Andalusia is, therefore, appropriate
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I).
B. Judge McCalma
To the extent the conduct about which Plaintiff complains with respect to Judge
McCalma emanate from judicial actions taken by him in his capacity as a judge for the
Municipal Court of Andalusia, he is due to be dismissed. The law is well-settled that state
judges are absolutely immune from damages liability when sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
actions taken in the course of their judicial duties. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978);
Paisey v. Vitale in and for Broward County, 807 F.2d 889 (11 th Cir. 1986). Thus, Plaintiff’s
1
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 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).
2
request for damages against Judge McCalma is “based on an indisputably meritless legal
theory” and is, therefore, subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
II. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:
1. Plaintiff's claims against Judge McCalma and the Municipal Court for Andalusia,
Alabama, be DISMISSED under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i);
2. Defendants McCalma and the Municipal Court for Andalusia, Alabama, be
DISMISSED as parties to the complaint; and
3. This case be referred back to the undersigned for additional proceedings.
It is further
ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said
Recommendation on or before January 26, 2006. Any objections filed must specifically
identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous,
conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are
advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not
appealable.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the
Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District
3
Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual
findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain
error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See Stein
v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of
Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th Cir. 1981, en banc), 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.
Done this 13 th day of January, 2006.
/s/Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dorsey v. Anthony Clark, Et Al (INMATE2) - Document No. 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dorsey v. Anthony Clark, Et Al (INMATE2) - Document No. 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dorsey v. Anthony Clark, Et Al (INMATE2) - Document No. 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dorsey v. Anthony Clark, et al (INMATE2) Doc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JOE MITCHELL DORSEY *

v. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:050CV-1239-F

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated in the Covington County Jail located in Andalusia,

McCalma, Sheriff Anthony Clark, and Annett King.

A. The Municipal Court of Andalusia

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I).

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

Alabama, be DISMISSED under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i);

2. Defendants McCalma and the Municipal Court for Andalusia, Alabama, be

DISMISSED as parties to the complaint; and

3. This case be referred back to the undersigned for additional proceedings.

September 30, 1981.

Done this 13 th day of January, 2006.

You might also like