Taylor v. Mosley et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1) Taylor's claims against Jamie Mosley are DISMISSED w/prejudice; 2) Action is STRICKEN from the Court's docket; 3) Jgm will be entered.. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 5/19/17.(MRS)cc: COR, pro se filer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION at LONDON
RANDY TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 6:17-60-KKC

V.
JAMIE MOSLEY,

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

Defendant.

*** *** *** ***
Randy Taylor is an inmate at the Roederer Correctional Complex, a Kentucky state prison
located in LaGrange, Kentucky. Proceeding without an attorney, Taylor has filed a civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he sues Jamie Mosley, the Jailer at the Laurel County
Detention Center, in both his individual and official capacities. [R. 1].
In Taylor’s complaint, he argues that his religious rights were violated while he was held
at the Laurel County Detention Center in 2016. [R. 1 at 4]. According to Taylor, while he was
incarcerated at the detention center, he “noticed a new rule was being enforced which require[d]
the inmates to worship the guards.” [R. 1 at 4]. Taylor explains that “[t]his rule requires that any
time an officer or jail official enters the cell that the inmates return to their designated mats whether
on the floor or the top bunk and sit down and remain sitting until the officer leaves the cell.” [R.
1 at 4]. Taylor adds that “[w]hen I questioned this the response was that it is for the safety of the
officer and the inmates.” [R. 1 at 4]. Taylor, however, takes issue with that apparent explanation,
arguing that “this isn’t done for anyone’s safety, it’s done to satisfy someone’s sinful
expectations.” [R. 1 at 4]. Taylor then echoes this argument on the next page of his complaint
before later indicating that he is seeking $1.6 million in damages. [R. 1 at 5-6].

Taylor’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Even if the
Court accepts Taylor’s allegations as true, as it must at this early state of the litigation, see Prater
v. City of Burnside, Ky., 289 F.3d 417, 424 (6th Cir. 2002), Taylor has simply not made out a
violation of any of his constitutional or statutory rights.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Taylor’s claims against Jamie Mosley are DISMISSED with prejudice.

2.

This action is STRICKEN from the Court’s docket.

3.

A corresponding Judgment will be entered this date.

Dated May 19, 2017.

2