United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RODNEY J. MURPHY, Plaintiff,
DARYL D. BAILEY, D.A., in his official and individual capacity, MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMISSION, MONTGOMERY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, and STATE OF ALABAMA, Defendants.
Keith Watkins CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
January 3, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation.
(Doc. # 5.) On January 12, 2017, Plaintiff Rodney J. Murphy
filed objections. (Doc. # 6.) The court has conducted an
independent and de novo review of those portions of
the Recommendation to which objection is made. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
objections do not offer any substantive legal argument or
factual assertions concerning the following critical findings
of the Magistrate Judge: (1) that the complaint fails to
allege facts sufficient to state a claim in compliance with
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) that,
on its face, the complaint seeks relief against defendants
who are immune from such relief; (3) that Plaintiff's
claims are barred by the statute of limitations; (4) that, to
the extent Plaintiff is attempting to allege state law tort
claims premised on a theory of malicious prosecution, the
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to the lack of
diversity between the parties; and (5) that dismissal with
prejudice prior to service of the complaint is appropriate
because any amendment would be futile. In his objection,
Plaintiff seeks leave to amend. However, Plaintiff offers no
basis for a finding that an amendment could be anything but
review of the record and Plaintiff's objections, the
court reaches the following conclusions: (1) that
supplemental jurisdiction exists over Plaintiff's state
law malicious prosecution claim, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(a); (2) that the complaint fails to allege facts
sufficient to state a claim against any Defendant; (3) that
the federal claims in the complaint, except for claims akin
to a claim for malicious prosecution,  are time-barred;
and (4) that the federal and state law claims in the
complaint are subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) on grounds that they seek relief
against parties who enjoy prosecutorial and/or sovereign
immunity. Further, the court finds that further
opportunity to amend would be futile.
it is ORDERED as follows:
Recommendation (Doc. # 5) is ADOPTED.
This action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
separate final judgment will be entered.
 “For both complaints of
malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, federal courts
borrow the statute of limitation of the forum state.”
Burgest v. McAfee, 264 F. App'x 850, 853 (11th
Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). In Alabama, actions for
malicious prosecution must be brought within two years of the
failure to file a notice of appeal or, if an appeal is filed,
from the final decision on appeal. Ala. Code 1975 §
6-2-38; Barrett Mobile Home Transp., Inc. v.
McGugin, 530 So.2d 730, 733 (Ala. 1988). Documents
attached to Plaintiff's complaint indicate that the
prosecution arising from the September 19, 2014 arrest was
originally nol prossed in November 2014 (Doc. #
1-4), but other unexplained documents indicate that another
prosecution was initiated in 2016. The subject of the 2016
prosecution is not apparent on the face of the complaint and
supporting documents. Plaintiff's objections seems to
suggest that the two prosecutions are related to the same
underlying alleged criminal conduct. On the whole, it is not
clear from the complaint and attached documents or from
Plaintiff's objections whether, prior to the filing of
the complaint, the statute of limitations expired on a
malicious prosecution claim arising out of the acts and
omissions alleged in the complaint. Therefore, the court
makes no finding as to whether Plaintiff's federal or
state claims for malicious prosecution are barred by the
statute of limitations.
 Plaintiff's complaint does not
allege specific facts indicating any basis for the Montgomery
County Commission's liability. The remaining Defendants
are immune from Plaintiff's claims. Melton v.
Abston, 841 F.3d 1207, 1234 (11th Cir. 2016) (holding
that “Alabama sheriffs and their deputies are state
officials and are absolutely immune from suit as an officer
of the state under the Eleventh Amendment” and that
Alabama sheriffs are immune from prosecution under Art. I,
§ 14, Alabama Const. 1901); Jones v. Cannon,
174 F.3d 1271, 1281 (11th Cir. 1999) (“A prosecutor
enjoys absolute immunity from allegations stemming from the
prosecutor's function as advocate.”);
Poindexter v. Dep't of Human Res., 946 F.Supp.2d
1278, 1291 (M.D. Ala. 2013) (“[T]he Eleventh Amendment
bars both federal and state law claims against states and
state entities regardless of type of relief sought, with the
exception of those claims that fall ...