# Floyd v. Wilson (INMATE 2)

> District Court, M.D. Alabama · August 19, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10629962

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Alabama
- **Decided:** August 19, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10629962

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION

TWMAINE XAVIER FLOYD, )
#302 423, )
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-CV-588-ALB
) [WO]
JOHNNIE WILSON, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff is an inmate incarcerated at the Kilby Correctional Facility in Mt. Meigs,
Alabama. He brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for damages and injunctive relief alleging
Defendant Wilson subjected him to excessive force on June 30, 2019, during his incarceration at
the Lee County Detention Center. Plaintiff names as defendants Officer Johnnie Wilson and the
Lee County Detention Center. Upon review, the court concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff's claims
against the Lee County Detention Center prior to service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).1
I. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff names the Lee County Detention Center as a defendant. The law is settled that
in order to state a claim for relief under Section 1983, a plaintiff must satisfy two
elements. First, a plaintiff must allege that an act or omission deprived him “of
some right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States.” Hale v. Tallapoosa Cty., 50 F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th Cir. 1995). Second, a
plaintiff must allege that the act or omission was committed by “a person acting
under color of state law.” Id. While local governments qualify as “persons” under
Section 1983, state agencies and penal institutions are generally not considered

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).
legal entities subject to suit. See Grech v. Clayton Cty., 335 F.3d 1326, 1343 (11th
Cir. 2003). Consequently, a county jail [is] not [a] viable defendant[] under Section
1983. Williams v. Chatham Cty. Sherriff’s Complex, Case No. 4:07-CV-68, 2007
WL 2345243, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 14, 2007) (“The county jail . . . has no
independent legal identity and therefore is not an entity that is subject to suit under
Section 1983.”).

Bell v. Brown, 2017 WL 3473845, at *5 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 11, 2017); see Ex parte Dixon, 55 So.3d
1171, 1172 n.1 (Ala. 2010) (“Generally, the departments and subordinate entities of municipalities,
counties, and towns that are not separate legal entities or bodies do not have the capacity to sue or
be sued in the absence of specific statutory authority.”).
In light of the foregoing, it is clear the Lee County Detention Center is not a legal entity
subject to suit and is, therefore, due to be dismissed as a defendant under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
II. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:
1. Plaintiff's claims against the Lee County Detention Center be DISMISSED with
prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i);
2. The Lee County Detention Center be TERMINATED as a party; and
3. This case be referred to the undersigned for additional proceedings.
It is further
ORDERED that on or before September 3, 2019, Plaintiff may file an objection to the
Recommendation. Any objection must specifically identify the findings in the Recommendation
to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by
the District Court. Plaintiff is further advised this Recommendation is not a final order 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 a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of
factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall “waive the right to challenge on
appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions” except upon

grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust
Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d
790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).
Done, this 19th day of August 2019.

/s/ Charles S. Coody
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10629962. Public record. Not legal advice.