Smith v. Coy et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. The Court having dismissed the claims against all Defendants on initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and Plaintiff having failed to keep the Court advised of his address, the Court will dismiss the entire action by separate Order for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Counsel (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT OWENSBORO
DONALD LEE SMITH

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15CV-P59-JHM

HOPKINS COUNTY JAIL et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Prisoner-Plaintiff Donald Lee Smith filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered November 3, 2015 (DN 7), the Court
conducted initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed all
claims against the Hopkins County Jail and the claims brought against Sgt. Coy, Sgt. Lampton,
Head Nurse Jodie Blake, and Jailer Joe Blue in their official-capacity1 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and determined that
any amendment of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim would be futile as that
claim failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
The Court also granted Plaintiff 30 days within which to file an amended complaint to name
those person or persons involved in his Eighth Amendment claims alleging that he is being
denied medical and mental health treatment and being placed in a top bunk, to sue them in their
individual capacity, and to describe the facts surrounding each persons’ involvement in his
claims. The Court advised that should Plaintiff file no amended complaint within 30 days, it
would enter a final Order dismissing the entire action. On November 12, 2015, the U.S. Postal
Service returned Plaintiff’s copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order to the Court with the
returned envelope marked “Return to Sender, Unable to Forward.”
1

Plaintiff sued these Defendants in only their official-capacity.

The Court having dismissed the claims against all Defendants on initial review and
Plaintiff having failed to keep the Court advised of his address, see LR 5.2(d), the Court will
dismiss the entire action by separate Order for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
Date:

January 19, 2016

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of record
4414.005

2