Davis v. Daviess County Detention Center

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr.; Upon initial screening, the complaint will be dismissed by separate Order. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Defendant; Daviess County Attorney (ERH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
OWENSBORO DIVISION
CHAD ALLEN DAVIS

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-CV-P18-JHM

DAVIESS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a civil rights action brought by a convicted prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This matter is before the
Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601
(6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 594 U.S. 199 (2007). For the
reasons set forth below, the action will be dismissed.
I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff did not complete the portions of the Court-supplied 42 U.S.C. § 1983 form where he
is asked to identify the Defendants or specify what type of relief he seeks. Rather, Plaintiff
simply stated as follows in the section of the complaint titled “Statement of Claims:
I came in the Daviess County Detention Center on 11-18-15 and all my clothing
items were lodged in a property bag. Now they are saying they can’t find my
property, the guards keep telling me that they tried looking for them, but they are
nowhere to be found. So I have asked several times what are they going to do
about my property but they won’t respond back to me. I had some nice clothes
and a brand new pair of shows when I got booked in and I would at least like to
be reimburst for all of my lost items. I don’t think it’s right that they can lose your
property and get by with it. The guards here just smile about it when I ask what’s
going to happen, they don’t say nothing and just walk away. Just because I’m in
jail doesn’t mean I lost all my rights, so could you please help me with this
matter. Thank you for your time.
The construes this statement as identifying the Daviess County Detention Center (DCDC) as the
Defendant and as requesting compensatory damages for relief.

II. LEGAL STANDARD
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 at 604.
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] 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] pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89
(2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). However, while liberal, this
standard of review does require more than the bare assertion of legal conclusions. See Columbia
Natural Res., Inc. v. Tatum, 58 F.3d 1101, 1109 (6th Cir. 1995). The court’s duty “does not
require [it] to conjure up unpled allegations,” McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979),

2

or to create a claim for a 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. ANALYSIS
“Section 1983 creates no substantive rights, but merely provides remedies for
deprivations of rights established elsewhere.” Flint ex rel. Flint v. Ky. Dep’t of Corr., 270 F.3d
340, 351 (6th Cir. 2001). Two elements are required to state a claim under § 1983. Gomez v.
Toledo, 446 U.S. 635 (1980). “[A] plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was
committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
“Absent either element, a section 1983 claim will not lie.” Christy v. Randlett, 932 F.2d 502,
504 (6th Cir. 1991).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to identify a right secured by the Constitution or a federal statute
that had been violated by Defendant’s actions. The Supreme Court has held that where adequate
remedies are provided by state law, the negligent or intentional loss or destruction of personal
property does not state a claim cognizable under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process
Clause. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 537
(1981), overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986). In order to
assert a claim for deprivation of property without due process pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a
plaintiff must allege that the state post-deprivation procedures are inadequate to remedy the

3

deprivation. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. at 543-44. Similarly, the Sixth Circuit has stated, “in
section 1983 damage suits claiming the deprivation of a property interest without procedural due
process of law, the plaintiff must plead and prove that state remedies for redressing the wrong
are inadequate.” Vicory v. Walton, 721 F.2d 1062, 1066 (6th Cir. 1983). The Sixth Circuit has
found that Kentucky’s statutory remedy for such losses is adequate within the meaning of
Parratt. Wagner v. Higgins, 754 F.2d 186, 191-92 (6th Cir. 1985). The same rationale applies
to claims under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause; that is, no taking has occurred absent a
showing that available remedies have been pursued and have failed to provide adequate
compensation. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. at 539 (O'Connor, J., concurring). It is also true that
the failure to protect a prisoner’s property generally does not state an Eighth Amendment claim
because it does pose a risk to an inmate’s safety. Hunter v. Sherman, 49 F. App’x 611, 612 (6th
Cir. 2002).
Thus, because Plaintiff has failed to allege facts which could establish that a
constitutional or federal right has been violated, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action must be dismissed. See also Tyson v. Warren Cty, No. 1:14CV-P114-GNS, 2014
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176990, at *8 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 24, 2014) (holding for same reasons that
plaintiff who alleged that jail had lost valuable property that had been taken from him when he
was booked had failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted).

4

IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s action will be dismissed by separate order pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Date:

May 26, 2016

cc: Plaintiff, pro se
Defendant
Daviess County Attorney
4414.011

5