Goostree v. Hardin County Detention Center
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge David J. Hale. On initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, IT IS ORDERED that the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against HCDC/Hardin County is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 15A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days from the entry date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, Plaintiff may amend the complaint. Should Plaintiff file no amended complain t within 30 days, the Court will enter a final Order dismissing the entire action for the reasons stated herein. The Clerk is DIRECTED to place the instant case number and "Amended" on a § 1983 complaint form and send it, along with four blank summons forms, to Plaintiff. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (JLS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
TIMOTHY SHAWN GOOSTREE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-P134-DJH
HARDIN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,
Defendant.
* * * * *
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Timothy Shawn Goostree’s pro se complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons that follow, the Court will dismiss the claims
against the Hardin County Detention Center (HCDC) and provide Plaintiff with an opportunity
to file an amended complaint.
I. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
Plaintiff is a convicted prisoner incarcerated at HCDC. He brings suit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against HCDC. Plaintiff asserts that his constitutional right to receive proper
medical attention has been violated based on the following statement of his claim:
As a state inmate at H.C.D.C. I am being denied my prescription medication
(Paxil) that I take for depression and Bi-polar. I arrived at H.C.D.C on
Thursday Feb. 11 and have tried acquiring several different times and ways
as to why I am not receiving my medication. I’m always given the same
answer (We will look into it).
As relief, Plaintiff requests an investigation into HCDC and a transfer to a location where he can
receive proper medical care.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking relief against governmental entities, officers,
and/or employees, this Court must review the instant action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under
§ 1915A, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss the complaint, or any portion of
the complaint, if the court determines that it 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. See § 1915A(b)(1), (2); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir.
1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The trial court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as
frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual
contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327. In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a
claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[A]
district court must (1) view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and (2) take
all well-pleaded factual allegations as true.” Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d
478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009)
(citations omitted)). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not do.’ Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked
2
assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555, 557).
III. ANALYSIS
The HCDC is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983 because municipal departments,
such as jails, are not suable under § 1983. Marbry v. Corr. Med. Servs., No. 99-6706, 2000 WL
1720959, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2000) (holding that a jail is not an entity subject to suit under
§ 1983); see also Rhodes v. McDannel, 945 F.2d 117, 120 (6th Cir. 1991) (holding that a police
department may not be sued under § 1983). In this situation, Hardin County is the proper
Defendant. See Smallwood v. Jefferson Cty. Gov’t, 743 F. Supp. 502, 503 (W.D. Ky. 1990).
Further, Hardin County is a “person” for purposes of § 1983. See Monell v. New York City Dept.
of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
When a § 1983 claim is made against a municipality, this Court must analyze two distinct
issues: (1) whether Plaintiff’s harm was caused by a constitutional violation; and (2) if so,
whether the municipality is responsible for that violation. Collins v. City of Harker Heights,
Tex., 503 U.S. 115, 120 (1992). The Court will address the issues in reverse order.
“[A] municipality cannot be held liable solely because it employs a tortfeasor -- or, in
other words, a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.”
Monell, 436 U.S. at 691; Searcy v. City of Dayton, 38 F.3d 282, 286 (6th Cir. 1994); Berry v.
City of Detroit, 25 F.3d 1342, 1345 (6th Cir. 1994). “[T]he touchstone of ‘official policy’ is
designed ‘to distinguish acts of the municipality from acts of employees of the municipality, and
thereby make clear that municipal liability is limited to action for which the municipality is
actually responsible.’” City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 138 (1988) (quoting
3
Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 479-80 (1986)). To demonstrate municipal liability, a
plaintiff “must (1) identify the municipal policy or custom, (2) connect the policy to the
municipality, and (3) show that his particular injury was incurred due to execution of that
policy.” Alkire v. Irving, 330 F.3d 802, 815 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Garner v. Memphis Police
Dep’t, 8 F.3d 358, 364 (6th Cir. 1993)).
In the instant case, Plaintiff does not allege that he is being denied medication based on a
Hardin County policy or custom. Nothing in the complaint demonstrates that the action or
inaction of any personnel occurred as a result of a policy or custom implemented or endorsed by
the county. The complaint, therefore, fails to establish a basis of liability against the
municipality and fails to state a cognizable § 1983 claim. Accordingly, the claim against
HCDC/Hardin County will be dismissed.
“[U]nder Rule 15(a) a district court can allow a plaintiff to amend his complaint even
when the complaint is subject to dismissal under the PLRA [Prison Litigation Reform Act].”
LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013). The Court will allow Plaintiff an
opportunity to amend his claim of being denied medication to name as Defendants in their
individual capacity the person or persons who he claims engaged in the alleged wrongdoing and
to describe the facts surrounding how each Defendant allegedly violated his rights.
IV. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the § 1983 claim against HCDC/Hardin County is DISMISSED
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days from the entry date of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order, Plaintiff may amend the complaint to name the person or
persons involved in his claim that he is being denied prescription medication; to sue them in their
individual capacity; and to describe the facts surrounding each Defendant’s involvement in his
denial-of-medication claim. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to place the instant case number
and “Amended” on a § 1983 complaint form and send it, along with four blank summons forms,
to Plaintiff for his use should he wish to amend the complaint. The Court will conduct an initial
review on the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Should Plaintiff file no amended complaint within 30 days, the Court will enter a
final Order dismissing the entire action for the reasons stated herein.
Date:
August 15, 2016
David J. Hale, Judge
United States District Court
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4415.005
5
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?