Hibbs v. Louisville Metro Department of Corrections et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Greg N. Stivers on 6/1/2018. Plaintiff's claim against LMDC, his official-capacity claims against both Defendants, and his individual capacity claim against Bolton are DISMISSED. Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate Bolton as a party to this action. The Court will enter a separate Order Directing Service and Scheduling Order.cc:Plaintiff, pro se; Defendants; Jefferson County Attorney (JWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18CV-P240-GNS

BRANDON L. HIBBS

PLAINTIFF

v.
LOUISVILLE METRO
DEP’T OF CORRECTIONS et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Brandon L. Hibbs filed the instant pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This matter is before the Court on initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
For the reasons stated below, the Court will dismiss some of Plaintiff’s claims and allow one of
his claims to proceed.
I.
Plaintiff identifies himself as a pretrial detainee at the Louisville Metro Department of
Corrections (LMDC). He sues LMDC; Kevin Smith, a doctor at LMDC; and LMDC Director
Mark Bolton. He sues Smith and Bolton in their individual and official capacities.
Plaintiff states that he was injured “when I fell and broke my clavical bone due to neglect
to clean water from a hallway floor that occurred when a janitors sink was leaking and wasnt
mopped up nor was there any slip and fall signs posted anywhere in sight.” He continues, “Due
to this accident I now have a collerbone pertruding out my chest due to it not being addressed in
a promtly manner.” Plaintiff asserts that twice surgeries were scheduled but that “[t]hey failed to
notify me of any surgery they had scheduled so I didn’t have the proper time to meet the criteria
for surgery . . . .” Plaintiff further states, “Knowing the doctors wrongs he stated to me not to

say anything or he would lose his job the doctor is Kevin Smith.” He also reports that he went to
University of Louisville Hospital for his injuries and that he has records of this. Plaintiff
concludes, “LMDC fail to comply with my medical issue’s ‘left I Brandon L. Hibbs for dead.’”
As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages.
II.
When a prisoner initiates a civil action seeking redress from a governmental entity,
officer, or employee, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss the complaint, or any
portion of it, if the court determines that the complaint 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).
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)). “But the district
court need not accept a ‘bare assertion of legal conclusions.’” Tackett, 561 F.3d at 488 (quoting
Columbia Natural Res., Inc. v. Tatum, 58 F.3d 1101, 1109 (6th Cir. 1995)). “A pleading that
offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will
2

not do.’ Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557).
Although this Court recognizes that pro se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent
standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21
(1972); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991), “[o]ur duty to be ‘less stringent’
with pro se complaints does not require us to conjure up unpled allegations.” McDonald v. Hall,
610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979) (citation omitted). And this Court is not required to create a
claim for Plaintiff. Clark v. Nat’l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975).
To command otherwise would require the Court “to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a
pro se plaintiff, [and] would also transform the district court from its legitimate advisory role to
the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful
strategies for a party.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
III.
A. LMDC and official-capacity claims
Plaintiff sues LMDC and sues Smith and Bolton in their official capacities. LMDC 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 U.S. App. LEXIS 28072,
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, Louisville Metro Government is the proper
defendant. Smallwood v. Jefferson Cty. Gov’t, 743 F. Supp. 502. 503 (W.D. Ky. 1990). Further,
Louisville Metro Government is a “person” for purposes of § 1983. See Monell v. New York City

3

Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55 (1978). The Court therefore will construe the claim
against LMDC as a claim brought against Louisville Metro Government.
Moreover, “[o]fficial-capacity suits . . . ‘generally represent [] another way of pleading an
action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.’” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159,
165 (1985) (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 690 n.55). Suing employees in their official capacities
is the equivalent of suing their employer. Lambert v. Hartman, 517 F.3d 433, 439-40 (6th Cir.
2008); Matthews v. Jones, 35 F.3d 1046, 1049 (6th Cir. 1994); Smallwood v. Jefferson Cty.
Gov’t, 743 F. Supp. at 503. Therefore, the Court construes Plaintiff’s official-capacity claims
against Smith and Bolton as brought against their employer, Louisville Metro Government.
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 first address the second issue, i.e., whether the
municipality is responsible for the alleged constitutional violation.
A municipality cannot be held responsible for a constitutional deprivation unless there is
a direct causal link between a municipal policy or custom and the alleged constitutional
deprivation. Monell, 436 U.S. at 691; Deaton v. Montgomery Cty., Ohio, 989 F.2d 885, 889
(6th Cir. 1993). 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)). The policy or
custom “must be ‘the moving force of the constitutional violation’ in order to establish the

4

liability of a government body under § 1983.” Searcy v. City of Dayton, 38 F.3d 282, 286 (6th
Cir. 1994) (quoting Polk Cty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 326 (1981) (citation omitted)).
In the instant case, Plaintiff alleges that he fell and was injured and that LMDC personnel
failed to properly treat his injuries. However, he does not allege that the action or inaction of any
Defendant occurred as a result of a policy or custom implemented or endorsed by Louisville
Metro Government. The complaint alleges isolated occurrences affecting only Plaintiff. See Fox
v. Van Oosterum, 176 F.3d 342, 348 (6th Cir. 1999) (“No evidence indicates that this was
anything more than a one-time, isolated event for which the county is not responsible.”).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim against LMDC and his official-capacity claims against Smith and
Bolton will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
B. Individual-capacity claims
1. Bolton
Plaintiff names Bolton in the portion of the complaint form where the Defendants are to
be listed, but the complaint and attachments contain no other reference to Bolton. Therefore,
Plaintiff states no facts regarding Bolton’s personal involvement in the events giving rise to the
complaint. Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint “shall
contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While the Court is aware of its duty to construe pro se complaints
liberally, Plaintiff is not absolved of his duty to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure by providing Defendants with “fair notice of the basis for his claims.” Swierkiewicz v.
Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002). To state a claim for relief, Plaintiff must show how
each Defendant is accountable because the Defendant was personally involved in the acts about
which he complains. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 375-76 (1976). Because Plaintiff has
5

not alleged any personal involvement by Bolton, the claims against him must be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to hold Bolton liable based on his supervisory
authority as Director of LMDC, the doctrine of respondeat superior, or the right to control
employees, does not apply in § 1983 actions to impute liability onto supervisors. Monell v. New
York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Taylor v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr., 69 F.3d
76, 80-81 (6th Cir. 1995); Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416, 421 (6th Cir. 1984). Rather, to
establish supervisory liability in a § 1983 action, “[t]here must be a showing that the supervisor
encouraged the specific incident of misconduct or in some other way directly participated in it.
At a minimum, a § 1983 plaintiff must show that a supervisory official at least implicitly
authorized, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of the offending
subordinate.” Bellamy, 729 F.2d at 421 (citing Hays v. Jefferson Cty., Ky., 668 F.2d 869, 872-74
(6th Cir. 1982)). Supervisory liability “must be based on active unconstitutional behavior and
cannot be based upon ‘a mere failure to act.’” Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir.
1999) (quoting Salehpour v. Univ. of Tenn., 159 F.3d 199, 206 (6th Cir. 1998)).
The complaint fails to demonstrate that Bolton encouraged any specific incidents or
implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in any unconstitutional conduct.
Accordingly, the claim against Bolton in his individual capacity will be dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
2. Smith
Upon review, the Court construes Plaintiff’s allegations as alleging an Eighth
Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs against Smith. The

6

Court will allow the claim to continue against Smith in his individual capacity. In doing so, it
passes no judgment on the merit or ultimate outcome of the case.
The Court notes that Plaintiff also alleges that he fell “due to neglect to clean water from
a hallway floor.” However, Plaintiff names no Defendants associated with the allegations.
Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff did not intend to allege a separate claim concerning
the fall itself.
IV.
For the reasons set forth herein, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claim against LMDC, his official-capacity claims
against both Defendants, and his individual-capacity claim against Bolton are DISMISSED
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
Because no claims remain against Bolton, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate
him as a party to this action.
The Court will enter a separate Order Directing Service and Scheduling Order governing
the claims that have been permitted to proceed.
Date:

June 1, 2018

Greg N. Stivers, Judge
United States District Court
cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
Jefferson County Attorney
4416.010

7