Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-18-WHA-JTA [WO]
04-22-2020
TAYWAN DEWAYNE CAMPBELL, #210 809, Plaintiff, v. ADOC, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a complaint filed by Plaintiff Taywan Campbell, an indigent inmate confined at the Kilby Correctional Facility in Mt. Meigs, Alabama. Campbell alleges Defendants failed to protect him from an inmate assault which occurred at the Ventress Correctional Facility on September 8, 2019. Named as defendants are the Alabama Department of Corrections, the Ventress Correctional Facility, Sergeant T. Rogers, and Correctional Officers Thomas and Dennis. Docs. 1, 7.
Upon review, the court concludes Campbell's complaint and amendment thereto against the Alabama Department of Corrections and the Ventress Correctional Facility are due to be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
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). The court may sua sponte dismiss a prisoner's complaint prior to service. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
Under § 1915A(b)(1) the court may dismiss a claim as "frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact." See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim is frivolous when it "has little or no chance of success," that is, when it appears "from the face of the complaint that the factual allegations are clearly baseless or that the legal theories are indisputably meritless." Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993). A claim is frivolous as a matter of law where the defendants are immune from suit, id. at 327, the claim seeks to enforce a right that clearly does not exist, id., or there is an affirmative defense that would defeat the claim, such as the statute of limitations, Clark v. Georgia Pardons & Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636, 640 n.2 (11th Cir. 1990). Courts are accorded "not only the authority to dismiss [as frivolous] a claim based on indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
The court may dismiss a complaint, or any portion thereof, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Dismissal under § 1915A(b)(1) may be granted "only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). A review on this ground is governed by the same standards as dismissals for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007). To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). To state a claim to relief that is plausible, the plaintiff must plead factual content that "allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. The allegations should present a "'plain statement' possess[ing] enough heft to 'show that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When a successful affirmative defense, such as a statute of limitations, appears on the face of a complaint, dismissal for failure to state a claim is also warranted. Jones, 549 U.S. at 215.
Pro se pleadings "are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys" and are liberally construed. Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006). However, they "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
II. DISCUSSION
Campbell names the Alabama Department of Corrections and the Ventress Correctional Facility as defendants. The Eleventh Amendment bars suit directly against a state or its agencies, regardless of the relief sought. Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984); Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986) (holding that unless the State of Alabama consents to suit or Congress rescinds its immunity, a plaintiff cannot proceed against the State or its agencies as the action is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment and "[t]his bar exists whether the relief sought is legal or equitable.").
"[T]he Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from entertaining suits by private parties against States and their agencies [or employees]." Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 781, 98 S. Ct. 3057, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1114 (1978). There are two exceptions to this prohibition: where the state has waived its immunity or where Congress has abrogated that immunity. Virginia Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247, 131 S. Ct. 1632, 1637-38, 179 L. Ed. 2d 675 (2011). "A
State's consent to suit must be 'unequivocally expressed' in the text of [a] relevant statute." Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277, 131 S. Ct. 1651, 1658, 179 L. Ed. 2d 700 (2011) (quoting Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 98, 104 S. Ct. 900, 79 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1984)). "Waiver may not be implied." Id. Likewise, "Congress' intent to abrogate the States' immunity from suit must be obvious from 'a clear legislative statement.'" Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 55, 116 S. Ct. 1114, 134 L. Ed. 2d 252 (1996) (quoting Blatchford v. Native Vill. of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775, 786, 111 S. Ct. 2578, 115 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1991)).Selensky v. Alabama, 619 F. App'x 846, 848-49 (11th Cir. 2015). Thus, neither the State of Alabama nor its agencies may be sued unless the State has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, see Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984), or Congress has abrogated the State's immunity, see Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 59 (1996).
Neither waiver nor abrogation applies here. The Alabama Constitution states that "the State of Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of law or equity." Ala. Const. art. I, § 14. The Supreme Court has recognized that this prohibits Alabama from waiving its immunity from suit. Pugh, 438 U.S. at 782, 98 S. Ct. 3057 (citing Ala. Const. art. I, § 14.)Selensky, 619 F. App'x at 849. "Alabama has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity in § 1983 cases, nor has Congress abated it." Holmes v. Hale, 701 F. App'x 751, 753 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing Carr v. City of Florence, Ala., 916 F.2d 1521, 1525 (11th Cir. 1990)). Consequently, any claims lodged against the State of Alabama or its agencies are frivolous and are, therefore, due to be dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
II. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that:
1. Plaintiff's complaint and amendment thereto against the Alabama Department of Corrections and the Ventress Correctional Facility (Docs. 1, 7) be DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1);
2. The Alabama Department of Corrections and the Ventress Correctional Facility be TERMINATED as parties; and
3. This case be referred back to the undersigned for additional proceedings.
It is hereby
ORDERED that on or before May 7, 2020, the parties may file an objection to the Recommendation. A party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which each objection is made. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered by the court. The parties are advised this Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.
Failure to file a written objection to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations as required by the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation. The failure to file a written objection will also waive the right of Campbell to challenge on appeal the District Court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993).
DONE this 22nd day of April, 2020.
/s/ Jerusha T. Adams
JERUSHA T. ADAMS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE