Summary
concluding neither the Dallas County Jail nor its medical staff and medical department are separate legal entities subject to suit under § 1983
Summary of this case from Rivera v. Dall. Cnty. SRTsOpinion
Civil Action No. 3:01-CV-1620-L
October 31, 2001
ORDER
This is a civil rights case brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is an inmate in the Dallas County Jail. Defendants are the Dallas County Jail, the jail medical staff and medical department. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the court in implementation thereof, this action was referred to the United States magistrate judge for proposed findings and recommendation. On October 10, 2001, the Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge were filed. On October 17, 2001, Defendant filed a document styled "Notice of Right to Object." The court will treat this written submission as Defendant's objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
The magistrate judge recommends that this action be summarily dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) because none of the entities identified as Defendants in this case is a separate legal entity capable of being sued. Plaintiff objects to this finding, contending that he has identified a defendant capable of being sued, namely, Dallas County Correctional Health Services. Pl.'s Objections at 3. The court disagrees. As noted by the magistrate judge, entities that do not have a separate jural existence are not subject to suit. See, e.g., Prenosil v. Dallas County Jail, Civil Action No. 3:93-CV-1130-D, slip op. at 2 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 1995) (holding that neither the "Dallas County Jail" nor the "Dallas County Health Department" is a proper defendant with jural existence). Unless a true political entity has expressly granted a servient agency or department jural authority, Plaintiff may not maintain an action against the agency or department. See Darby v. Pasadena Police Dept., 939 F.2d 311, 313 (5th Cir. 1991). Dallas County Correctional Health Services is not a proper defendant with a jural existence, and Plaintiff's assertion to the contrary must therefore be rejected.
After making an independent review of the pleadings, files and record in this case, the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge, and Plaintiff's objections thereto, the court concludes that the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions are correct. Plaintiff's objections are overruled, and the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions are accepted as the findings and conclusions of the court. Plaintiff has had two opportunities to identify a proper defendant with separate jural existence — Plaintiff's Response to the Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire to Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Objections to the Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge — and has failed to do so. Accordingly, Plaintiff's complaint is hereby summarily dismissed with prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), as Plaintiff has failed to identify a party who is subject to suit.
It is so ordered.