Johnson v. Boyd County Detention Center, et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Johnson's failure to protect claim against Officers Miller, Cantrell, Layne and McKenzie is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to fully exhaust his administrative remedies. 2. Johnson's various ot her claims are also DISMISSED without prejudice because they are improperly joined in this action. 3. Any and all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 4. This action is STRICKEN from the Court's docket. 5. A corresponding judgment will be entered this date. Signed by Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr on 3/14/18.(KSS)cc: COR, Johnson (via US Mail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION at ASHLAND
ERIC ANTHONY JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
BOYD COUNTY DETENTION
CENTER, ET AL.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 0:18-030-HRW

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

Defendants.

*** *** *** ***
Eric Anthony Johnson is an inmate at the Boyd County Detention Center
(BCDC) in Catlettsburg, Kentucky. Proceeding without a lawyer, Johnson filed a
civil rights complaint with this Court against Joseph Burchett, the Jailer of the
BCDC, as well as several unnamed BCDC employees.

This Court, however,

dismissed Johnson's complaint without prejudice for several reasons, including but
not limited to the fact that his complaint failed to adequately state a claim for relief
as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That said, the Court
noted that Johnson could file a new complaint that describes the facts of his case and
identifies the people, dates, places, and actions relevant to his claims. See Johnson

v. Burchett, No. 0:18-cv-013-HRW (E.D. Ky. 2018).
Johnson has now filed a new complaint with this Court.

[D. E. No. 1].

However, there are once again multiple problems with Johnson's complaint. As an
1

initial matter, Johnson did not file his latest complaint on a form approved for use
by this Court, as initially instructed by the Court in its order dismissing his last case.
Johnson v. Burchett, No. 0:18-cv-013-HRW (E.D. Ky. February 6, 2018).

More importantly, Johnson's latest complaint appears to violate Rule 20's
limits on permissive joinder of parties. That Rule only allows a plaintiff to join one
claim against one defendant and a different claim against a different defendant in
one lawsuit if both claims arise out of the same occurrence or series of occurrences.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A).

As best as the Court can tell from Johnson's submission, he is alleging several
different unrelated claims against several different defendants. Indeed, Johnson first
alleges that four prison officers failed to protect him from a recent February 2018
attack by other inmates. However, Johnson later asserts that, over the past several
months, a registered nurse at the prison has not provided him with medication to
treat his mental health problems, causing him "to see things that aren't there [and]
also to hear voices and [have] problems with paranoia as well." [D. E. No. 1 at 4].
Johnson also claims that, in October 2017, he was the victim of a sexual assault, and
a prison officer displayed deliberate indifference to that situation. Johnson then
claims there is black mold at the prison causing him emotional distress and breathing
problems and that a nurse failed to treat his symptoms. Johnson further alleges that
another prison officer threatened him months ago. These are just some of the claims
2

that Johnson asserts against the nine different defendants he names in his complaint.
In short, it appears that Johnson is trying to "throw all of his grievances, against ...
[many] different parties, into one stewpot," which is not permitted by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680,
683 (7th Cir. 2012).
In light of the combination of problems mentioned above, the Court will
address Johnson's first claim against four of the defendants and will then dismiss
without prejudice his other, unrelated claims against the other defendants. Johnson
may pursue those other claims if he so chooses by filing "separate complaints, each
confined to one group of injuries and defendants." Id.
With respect to Johnson's first claim, he alleges that, on February 12, 2018,
multiple inmates physically attacked him and four prison officers failed to protect
him from the assault. Johnson's allegations are certainly very serious. However,
Johnson is required to first address this matter with prison officials by fully
exhausting his administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit with this Court. See

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007). It is obvious from the face of Johnson's
complaint that he did not fully exhaust his administrative remedies; after all, Johnson
completed and signed his complaint on February 26, 2018, just two weeks after the
alleged events in question.

Since exhaustion is mandatory under the Prisoner

Litigation Reform Act, the Court will dismiss Johnson's claim without prejudice.
3

See Fletcher v. Myers, No. 5:11-cv-141-KKC (E.D. Ky. 2012), aff'd, No. 12-5630
(6th Cir. 2013). Ultimately, like Johnson's other claims, he may still pursue this
matter; however, he must first fully exhaust his administrative remedies.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Johnson's failure to protect claim against Officers Miller, Cantrell, Layne,
and McKenzie is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to fully
exhaust his administrative remedies.
2. Johnson's various other claims are also DISMISSED without prejudice
because they are improperly joined in this action.
3. Any and all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
4. This action is STRICKEN from the Court's docket.
5. A corresponding judgment will be entered this date.
This 14th day ofMarch._)018.

@
~

SlgnedBy:

IJ.enry B. Wilhoit, .J.tJ

United Statea Dl•trlct Judge

4