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
JIMMY FRANK CAMERON, #105591,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07-CV-35-WHA
STATE OF ALABAMA, et al.,
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Jimmy Frank Cameron [“Cameron”], a state inmate,
challenges his classification as a sex offender and the constitutionality of the Alabama
Community Notification Act.
Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that dismissal of the plaintiff's
claims against the State of Alabama and the Alabama Department of Corrections prior to
service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Cameron names the State of Alabama and the Alabama Department of Corrections
as defendants in this cause of action. The law is well-settled that both the State and all
departments thereof are immune from suit. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986).
Case 2:07-cv-00035-WHA-TFM Document 5 Filed 01/11/2007 Page 1 of 3
Cameron v. State of Alabama et al (INMATE1)
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.
Moreover, the Alabama Department of Corrections is not a person within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2