“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.”
How later courts described this case
- “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.”
- holding that a § 1983 suit arising from alleged erroneous decisions of a state court is merely a prohibited appeal of the state court judgment
- habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for prisoners attacking the validity or duration of their conviction or confinement
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AUDRA M. RHINE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-CV-989-RAH
) [WO]
HOUSTON COUNTY JAIL, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is an inmate incarcerated at the Houston County Jail in Dothan, Alabama. He
brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for damages against Commander Brazier and the Houston
County Jail challenging the conditions of confinement at the jail, a speedy trial violation, and
excessive bond. Upon review, the court concludes Plaintiff's claims against the Houston County
Jail and his allegations regarding the denial of a speedy trial and excessive bond are due to be
dismissed prior to service of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.1
I. DISCUSSION
A. The Houston County Jail
Plaintiff names the Houston County Jail 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
1 The Prison Litigation Reform Act, as partially codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, requires this court to screen
complaints filed by prisoners against government officers or employees as early as possible in the litigation.
The court must dismiss the complaint or any portion thereof that it finds frivolous, malicious, seeks
monetary damages from a defendant immune from monetary relief, or which states no claim upon which
relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1) & (2).
under color of state law.” Id. While local governments qualify as “persons” under
Section 1983, state agencies and penal institutions are generally not considered
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 Houston County Jail is not a legal entity subject to
suit and is, therefore, due to be dismissed as a defendant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
B. Excessive Bond
Plaintiff complains his bond is set too high and he cannot post bail. Plaintiff, however,
cannot sustain a claim for failure to provide reasonable bond against Commander Brazier. Under
relevant Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, judges and magistrates of the state courts are
responsible for and have authority to set and reduce bond/bail. See Ala. R. Crim. P., Rule 7.2.
Because Defendant Brazier has no authority to set or reduce Plaintiff’s bond, this claim is due to
be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
C. Speedy Trial
Plaintiff complains his request for a speedy trial has been ignored. Again, this is not a claim
properly brought against Defendant Brazier nor is a § 1983 complaint an appropriate remedy for
obtaining relief on a speedy trial challenge. To the extent Plaintiff is challenging the very fact or
duration of his physical imprisonment and the relief he seeks is a determination he is entitled to
immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his federal remedy is by way of a
writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (habeas corpus is the
exclusive remedy for prisoners attacking the validity or duration of their conviction or
confinement). And a § 1983 action is not an appropriate avenue to compel or appeal a particular
course of action by a state court. See Datz v. Kilgore, 51 F.3d 252, 254 (11th Cir. 1995) (holding
that a § 1983 suit arising from alleged erroneous decisions of a state court is merely a prohibited
appeal of the state court judgment). This claim is subject to dismissal under 1915A(1)(b).
II. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:
1. Plaintiff's claims against the Houston County Jail be DISMISSED with prejudice prior
to service of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1);
2. The Houston County Jail be TERMINATED as a party;
3. Plaintiff’s excessive bond and speedy trial claims be DISMISSED without prejudice
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); and
4. This case be referred to the undersigned for additional proceedings.
It is further
ORDERED that on or before March 3, 2020, 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 18th day of February 2020.
/s/ Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE