Flege v. Grant County Detention Center
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: 1) Flege's complaint 2 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 2) The Court will enter an appropriate judgment; 3) This matter is STRICKEN from the active docket. Signed by Judge William O. Bertelsman on 5/2/2017.(ECO)cc: Robert Flege, pro se plf, at address listed on the docket sheet
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
ROBERT DAMEON FLEGE,
GRANT COUNTY DET. CENTER,
Civil No. 2: 17-52-WOB
*** *** *** ***
Robert Dameon Flege has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In his complaint, Flege alleges that he was previously confined at the Grant County Detention
Center, where he intentionally clogged the toilet in his own cell and then defecated on the floor,
ironically to protest unsanitary conditions at the jail. Flege complains that as punishment, jail staff
then forced him to stay in the mess he had created for a week. While he doesn’t allege that he
suffered any harm as a result, he seeks substantial monetary damages from the jail. [R. 2 at 3-4]
The Court has granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis by prior Order.
The Court must conduct a preliminary review of Flege’s complaint because he has been
granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2). A district court must
dismiss any claim that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Hill v. Lappin,
630 F. 3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). When testing the sufficiency of Flege’s complaint, the
Court affords it a forgiving construction, accepting as true all non-conclusory factual allegations
and liberally construing its legal claims in the plaintiff’s favor. Davis v. Prison Health Servs., 679
F.3d 433, 437-38 (6th Cir. 2012).
The Court must dismiss Flege’s complaint for failure to state a claim. While he has named
the Grant County Detention Center as the sole defendant, a county jail or detention center is not
an entity which may be sued apart from the county that operates it. Lambert v. Hartman, 517 F.3d
433, 439-40 (6th Cir. 2008); Matthews v. Jones, 35 F.3d 1046, 1049 (6th Cir. 1994); Marbry v.
Corr. Med. Serv., 238 F.3d 422, 2000 WL 1720959, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2000). Nor does the
liberal construction afforded pro se complaints warrant construing the complaint as asserting a
claim against Grant County itself where Flege makes no allegations against it or that the officers
acted pursuant to a county policy or custom. Cf. Thomas v. City of Chattanooga, 398 F.3d 426,
429 (6th Cir. 2005); Watson v. Gill, 40 F. App’x 88, 90 (6th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
Flege’s complaint [R. 2] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The Court will enter an appropriate judgment.
This matter is STRICKEN from the active docket.
This 2nd day of May, 2017.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?