A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint screened
in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening procedure requires the court
to dismiss a prisoner’s civil action prior to service of process if it determines that the complaint is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CHARLES HICKS, #246241,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07-CV-64-WKW
ALABAMA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al., )
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Charles Hicks [“Hicks”], a state inmate, challenges
the adequacy of the law library at the Frank Lee Youth Center.
Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that dismissal of the plaintiff's
claims against the Alabama Department of Corrections prior to service of process is
appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
The plaintiff names the Alabama Department of Corrections as a defendant in this
cause of action. The law is well-settled that state agencies are immune from suit, Papasan
v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986), and are not persons within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Case 2:07-cv-00064-WKW-CSC Document 5 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 1 of 3
Hicks v. Richard Allen et al (INMATE 1)
Although Neitzke interpreted the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the predecessor to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2), the analysis contained therein remains applicable to the present statute.
See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2309 (1989).
Thus, the plaintiff's claims against the Alabama Department of Corrections are frivolous as
they are "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory."