Opinion
Civil Action 1:22-00018-KD-N
09-14-2022
RODNEY J. MURPHY, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF ALABAMA, MARENGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, and DEBRA WILLIAMS, Defendants.
ORDER
KRISTI K. DUBOSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Rodney J. Murphy, who is proceeding without counsel (pro se) and in forma pauperis, filed an amended complaint dated April 11, 2022 (Doc. 11), which is the operative complaint in this action. The Magistrate Judge screened the amended complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and issued a report and recommendation to the Court. (Doc. 15).
After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the recommendation to which objection is made (Doc. 17), the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 15) made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a), and dated July 14, 2022, is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following:
1. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Claims. Because none of the Defendants are federal agencies, Murphy's FOIA claims are dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as frivolous, and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, without leave to amend as to those claims.
2. Moroccan-American Treaty of Peace and Friendship. Because the Treaty does not create a right to bring a civil cause of action against any of the Defendants, Murphy's claims based upon the Treaty are dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as frivolous, and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, without leave to amend as to those claims.
3. State of Alabama Eleventh Amendment Immunity. All claims brought against Defendant State of Alabama under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and directly under the U.S. Constitution are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) and/or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, without leave to amend as to those claims. All claims against the State of Alabama seeking to enforce section 7 of the Privacy Act under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are dismissed without prejudice 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) and/or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, without leave to amend as to those claims.
4. Privacy Act Claims brought pursuant to section 3 of the Privacy Act against all Defendants. All claims against Defendants, none of whom are federal agencies, brought directly under section 3 of the Privacy Act of 1974, which only applies to federal agencies, are dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as frivolous, and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, without leave to amend as to those claims.
5. Direct Constitutional Claims against Defendants Marengo County Department of Human Resources (DHR) and Debra Williams. All direct constitutional claims against the DHR and Williams are dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, without leave to amend as to those claims.
6. The Remaining Claims. The claims against the DHR and Williams brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the U.S. Constitution, the claims against DHR and Williams for violations of section 7 of the Privacy Act, and the claims against all Defendants for violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, are dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, unless no later than October 5, 2022, Murphy files a second amended complaint to plausibly allege causes of action under those laws.
7. If Murphy chooses to file a second amended complaint, he must state each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence in a separate count and must clearly identify under what part(s) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 he is asserting claims. Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b).
DONE and ORDERED