Paul Stickney, United States Magistrate Judge
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) and an order of this court, this case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge follow:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Dallas County Jail brings this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is proceeding pro se, and the Court has granted him permission to proceed in forma pauperis. The sole defendant is the Dallas County Jail. Plaintiffs complaint is clearly articulated. Accordingly, the Court need not issue a questionnaire to clarify the issues.
The terms of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (a) and(b) provide in pertinent part:
The court shall review... as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity [and] [on review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
See also 28 U.S.C. § 191 5(e)(2) ("notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof; that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that. . . (B) the action or appeal — (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.").
An action is frivolous is it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104L.Ed.2d 338 (1989), Henson-Elv. Rogers, 923 F.2d 51, 53 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, in S.Ct. 2863 (1991). A complaint is without an arguable basis in law if it is grounded upon an untenable or discredited legal theory Nenzke, 109 S. Ct at 1831. A claim may be deemed to lack an arguable basis in fact only if it is based upon factual allegations that are clearly fanciful or delusional in nature. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992).
To obtain relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must prove two elements: (1) a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) a deprivation of that right by the defendant acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 2254, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988); Doe v. Rains County Indep. School Dist., 66 F.3d 1402, 1406 (5th Cir. 1995).
Plaintiff claims that on September 22, 2000 in the basement of the Dallas County Jail between 5:30 and 6:00 P.M. water was standing on the floor. According to Plaintifl the guards came to feed the inmates, pulled the food cart in the water, and opened the door. When Plaintiff walked through the door, he slipped and fell, hitting his head on the concrete floor. Plaintiff suffers headaches, neck pain, and blurred vision from the slip and fall. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.
Plaintiff does not state any underlying facts which show that anyone knowingly or maliciously caused him to slip and fall. Rather, Plaintiff seeks redress on a theory the jail was negligent. Hence, he has failed to state a colorable claim under § 1983. Where mere negligence is involved in causing a deprivation, no procedure for compensation is constitutionally required. The unintentional loss of life, liberty or property does not state a cause of action under § 1983. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328, 106 S.Ct. 662, 663 (1986); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 347 106 S.Ct. 668, 670 (1986) Therefore, assuming the truth of Plaintiffs allegations that he injured himself in a slip and fall accident resulting from the jail's negligence, he fails to state a claim under § 1983.
Moreover, the Dallas County Jail is not a jural entity. A plaintiff may not bring a civil rights claim against a servient political agency or department unless such agency or department enjoys a separate and distinct legal existence. See Darby v. Pasadena Police Dept., 939 F.2d 311, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1991). Unless the true political entity has taken explicit steps to grant the servient agency jural authority, the agency cannot engage in any litigation except in concert with the government itself. Darby, 939 F.2d at 313. Plaintiff has failed to show that Dallas County has granted the Dallas County Jail the capacity to sue or be sued. In its present posture, his suit seeks relief from an entity which does not exist for such purposes. Id at 314. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and his complaint against the Dallas County Jail is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B) (ii). Ordinarily, a pro se plaintiff who names a non-jural entity as defendant should be alerted and given an opportunity to amend before dismissal of his complaint. See Parker v. Fort Worth Police Dept, 980 F.2d 1023, 1026 (5th Cir. 1993). However, in this case Plaintiff does not allege any actions by the jail which violated his constitutional rights. Permitting him to amend his complaint to name a jural entity would not save his claim from dismissal. Accordingly, Plaintiffs § 1983 action against the Dallas County Jail should be dismissed.
A case with no realistic chance of success is patently frivolous. Pugh v. Parish of St. Tammany, 875 F.2d 436, 438 (5th Cir. 1989). Plaintiffs well articulated complaint, construed liberally, reveals that Plaintiffs § 1983 claims against the Dallas County Jail have no arguable basis in law and no realistic chance of success. Accordingly, his complaint should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2)(B)(i) and (ii).
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendation on Plaintiff by mailing a copy to him by United States Mail. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(l), any party who desires to object to these findings, conclusions and recommendation must serve and file written objections within ten days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions or recommendation to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. A party's failure to file such written objections to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation shall bar that party from a de novo determination by the District Court. See Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 5. Ct 466, 472 (1985). Additionally, any failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within ten days after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).