Shananaquet v. Bolton

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Judge David J. Hale on 12/10/2017; Thus, for the reasons set forth in the Courts initial review of the complaint, which includes both a summary of Plaintiffs allegations with regard to each claim and the relevant controlling law, the Court finds that Plaintiffs claims based upon overcrowding and violations of the grievance procedure at LMDC were properly dismissed.cc:Pro-Se Pla., Dft., Jefferson Cty Atty. (ARM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
PERRY SHANANAQUET,

Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-P550-DJH

MARK BOLTON,

Defendant.
* * * * *
MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is a pro se civil rights action brought by a pretrial detainee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Court has granted Plaintiff Perry Shananaquet leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In his
complaint, Plaintiff sued Louisville Metro Department of Corrections (LMDC) Director Mark Bolton
in his official capacity for “black mold, overcrowdedness, poor ventilation, out of order shower and
sink, and violation of the grievance procedure.” Plaintiff sought punitive damages. On November
20, 2017, the Court conducted an initial review of Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims based upon overcrowding, temporary cell conditions, and
violations of the grievance procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
(DN 11). The Court, however, allowed Plaintiff to avoid dismissal of his black mold and poor
ventilation claim by amending his complaint to seek different relief.
Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint in which he seeks compensatory damages and
asks the Court to order Defendant Bolton to remove the black mold at LMDC and repair its
ventilation system (DN 12). Plaintiff also requests that he be allowed to sue Defendant Bolton in his
individual capacity. Upon review of Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
the Court will allow Plaintiff’s black mold and poor ventilation claims to proceed against Defendant
Bolton in both his official and individual capacities. The Court will enter an Order Regarding
Service and Scheduling Order to govern the development of these continuing claims.

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff also asks the Court to reconsider its dismissal of his
overcrowding and grievance procedure claims. He also requests “a more definite statement per
dismissed claims or alternatively give ‘findings of fact’ and ‘conclusion of law” on dismissed
claims.” The Court may reconsider interlocutory orders under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(b) or its inherent, common law authority to control the administration of the case before it.
Rodriguez v. Tenn. Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, 89 F. App’x 949, 959 (6th Cir. 2004); Mallory
v. Eyrich, 922 F.2d 1273, 1282 (6th Cir. 1991); see also Simmerman v. Ace Bayou Corp., 304 F.R.D.
516, 518 (E.D. Ky. 2015). Reconsideration of an interlocutory order is appropriate where “there is
(1) an intervening change of controlling law; (2) new evidence available; or (3) a need to correct a
clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Louisville/Jefferson Cty. Metro Gov’t v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
590 F.3d 381, 389 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Rodriguez, 89 F. App’x at 959) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The standard vests the Court with “significant discretion.” Rodriguez, 89 F. App’x at 959
n.7. Here, Plaintiff has pointed to no change in governing law, new evidence, or clear error in the
Court’s initial review of these claims. Thus, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s initial review of
the complaint, which includes both a summary of Plaintiff’s allegations with regard to each claim
and the relevant controlling law, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims based upon overcrowding and
violations of the grievance procedure at LMDC were properly dismissed.

Date: December 10, 2017

David J. Hale, Judge
United States District Court

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendant
Jefferson County Attorney
4415.011

2