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
JAMES WILLIAM BAILEY, IV,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:05-CV-419-T
HOUSTON 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 in the Houston County Jail.
Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that the plaintiff’s claims against
the Houston County Jail 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
I. The Houston County Jail
The plaintiff names the Houston 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.
Case 1:05-cv-00419-MHT-TFM Document 5 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 1 of 3
Bailey v. Sgt. Bonnin, 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.
Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992). In light of the foregoing, the court concludes
that the plaintiff's claims against the Houston County Jail are due to be dismissed under the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Neitzke v.