1A 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 or any claim therein 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
DIMITRI DEONTA LOVE,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:05-CV-671-T
TALLAPOOSA COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which the plaintiff, a county inmate, challenges
the conditions of confinement to which he is subjected at the Tallapoosa County Jail.
Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that the plaintiff’s claims against
the Tallapoosa County Jail should be dismissed from this cause of action prior to service of
process in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).1
The plaintiff names the Tallapoosa County Jail as a defendant in this cause of action.
A county jail is not a legal entity subject to suit or liability under section 1983. Cf. Dean v.
Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992). In light of the foregoing, the court concludes
that the plaintiff's claims against the Tallapoosa County Jail are due to be dismissed under
Case 3:05-cv-00671-MHT-CSC Document 6 Filed 07/25/2005 Page 1 of 3
Love v. Strong et al (INMATE1)
2Although Neitzke interpreted the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the predecessor to § 1915(e)(2), the
analysis contained therein remains applicable to the directives of the present statute.
the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 3