Shoults v. White

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell that this action is subject to dismissal because Plaintiff cannot obtain the relief he seeks. IT IS ORDERED that unless within 30 days, Plaintiff amends his complaint to state a claim entitling him to relief under § 1983, the Court will DISMISS this case with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send to Plaintiff a § 1983 form with this case number. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (SG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
ADAM B. SHOULTS

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-P77-TBR

RANDY WHITE

DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, Adam B. Shoults, filed a pro se, in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. 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, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).
I. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
Plaintiff is a prisoner at the Kentucky State Penitentiary (KSP). He names as Defendant
Randy White, the Warden at KSP. Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered from verbal abuse from
the staff. He complains that he gets “convicted of everything and I always get segregation hole
time everytime.” He states that he filed “complaints to medical about my chest pains I’ve been
having and the correct proceed was for me to go to outside hospital is not being due.” Plaintiff
further states: “it’s not good that I be at this prison because I fear for my safety and am scared
that this prison is out to get me and harm me.” As relief, he requests only “release[] from
imprisonment or probate the rest of my sentence.”
II. ANALYSIS
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 action, 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 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and (2). 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 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. When determining whether a plaintiff
has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court must construe the complaint in a
light most favorable to Plaintiff and accept all of the factual allegations as true. Prater v. City of
Burnside, Ky., 289 F.3d 417, 424 (6th Cir. 2002). While a reviewing court must liberally
construe pro se pleadings, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam), to avoid
dismissal, a complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Here, the Court finds that the instant action is frivolous. Relief in the form of release
from custody is not available through an action filed pursuant to § 1983. Preiser v. Rodriquez,
411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Alstatt v. Smith, No. 91-579, 1991 WL 193747, at *2 (6th Cir. Oct. 1,
1991); see also Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 387 (7th Cir. 2005) (“If an inmate established
that his medical treatment amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, the appropriate remedy
would be to call for proper treatment, or to award him damages; release from custody is not an
option.”); Gomez v. United States, 899 F.2d 1124, 1126 (11th Cir. 1990) (“Assuming arguendo
that his allegations of mistreatment demonstrate cruel and unusual punishment, the petitioner still
would not be entitled to release from prison. The appropriate remedy would be to enjoin
continuance of any practices or require correction of any conditions causing him cruel and
unusual punishment.”). Simply put, dismissal of the complaint is warranted because “[r]elease

2

from custody . . . is not among the remedies available to a prevailing party under § 1983.”
Dillard v. Yustas, No. 5:09SC-P69-R, 2009 WL 1458227, at *2 (W.D. Ky. May 22, 2009).
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, this action is subject to dismissal because Plaintiff cannot
obtain the relief he seeks in this § 1983 action. Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff has
not provided sufficient details surrounding his claims. However, the Court will allow Plaintiff to
amend his complaint. See LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013) (“[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.”). Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that unless within 30 days from entry of this Memorandum Opinion
and Order, Plaintiff amends his complaint to state a claim entitling him to relief under § 1983,
the Court will DISMISS this case with prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send to Plaintiff a § 1983 form with this case
number affixed thereto.
Date:

June 19, 2015

cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4413.009

3