From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scott v. Alabama Department of Corrections

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
Feb 3, 2010
CIVIL ACTION 09-0590-WS-C (S.D. Ala. Feb. 3, 2010)

Summary

holding that ADOC's Fountain Correctional Center does not have a legal existence apart from ADOC and is not a "person" who may be sued under § 1983

Summary of this case from Gossett v. Ala. Dep't of Corr.

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION 09-0590-WS-C.

February 3, 2010


ORDER


After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and there having been no objections raised, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge dated January 6, 2010 and made pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. It is ORDERED that plaintiff's existing claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and his motions to amend (Docs. 9 10) are DENIED. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 11) be and is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff may file a new complaint that names or properly identifies those suable entities that he claims are responsible for the injuries suffered if said complaint is filed within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Order.


Summaries of

Scott v. Alabama Department of Corrections

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
Feb 3, 2010
CIVIL ACTION 09-0590-WS-C (S.D. Ala. Feb. 3, 2010)

holding that ADOC's Fountain Correctional Center does not have a legal existence apart from ADOC and is not a "person" who may be sued under § 1983

Summary of this case from Gossett v. Ala. Dep't of Corr.
Case details for

Scott v. Alabama Department of Corrections

Case Details

Full title:JOE HENRY SCOTT, #258485, Plaintiff, v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division

Date published: Feb 3, 2010

Citations

CIVIL ACTION 09-0590-WS-C (S.D. Ala. Feb. 3, 2010)

Citing Cases

Gossett v. Ala. Dep't of Corr.

That is, "a prison facility[] does not enjoy legal status separate from the DOC itself[.]" Arps v. Eddie…