Shoults v. White et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Greg N. Stivers on 12/7/17: Within 30 days from the entry date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint which describes how each Defendant took actions that allegedly caused the deprivation of his constitutional rights. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a § 1983 complaint form with this case number and the word Amended written in the caption. cc: Plaintiff(pro se) (DJT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH
ADAM B. SHOULTS
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-P150-GNS
RANDY WHITE et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This is a civil rights action brought by a convicted prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Court has granted Plaintiff Adam B. Shoults leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This
matter is before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court will allow Plaintiff to amend his complaint.
I.
Plaintiff is an inmate at Kentucky State Penitentiary (KSP). In his complaint, he names
the following KSP officials as Defendants –Warden Randy Smith, in both his individual and
official capacities; Unit Administrator Troy Belt, in both his individual and official capacities;
Sergeant Brandon English, in his official capacity only; Lieutenant Jesse Coombs, in both his
individual and official capacities; Correctional Officer Michael Pillion, in his official capacity
only; and Sergeant James Smith, in his official capacity only.
Plaintiff first alleges that on August 2, 2017, he was waiting outside of his cell for
“outside recreation” in “cuffs and shackles.” He states that all the inmates going to recreation
had been placed in restraints by staff. Plaintiff then alleges that another inmate “hit him in the
face area with closed fists several times & hit me on my jaw area with the handcuffs dangling at
his hands.” Plaintiff states that “staff did not place this inmate in his handcuffs correctly and
which these are the same staff’s I have a current lawsuit on in Lyon County Courthouse
(Case # 17-CI-00056) . . . .” Plaintiff states that this inmate “should never have come out of his
restraints to assault me, but he did & staff has placed my life in danger by this inmate doing so.
My Eighth Amendment is in violation.” Plaintiff continues: “Now they have me stuck in the
hole – buried inside this segregation where they can duly retaliate against me & keep me here at
Eddvyille Prison. I’m being treated unfairly and I fear for my safety. Guards are using inmates
to get me. And I’m being kept in the segregation unit . . . for retaliation.” Plaintiff then states
the he has been in the “hole” for over three years even though, pursuant to institution policy, he
should have been eligible for a “time cut” because he has served “over 50% of his segregation
time.”
As relief, Plaintiff seeks to be released from segregation.
II.
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 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] 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,
2
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,
94 (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),
or 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.
“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).
3
As written, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
because Plaintiff fails to specify what action each Defendant took in relation to the allegations
set forth in his complaint. See Heyerman v. Cty. of Calhoun, 680 F.3d 642, 647 (6th Cir. 2012)
(noting that “[p]ersons sued in their individual capacities under § 1983 can be held liable based
only on their own unconstitutional behavior”); Murphy v. Grenier, 406 F. App’x 972, 974 (6th
Cir. 2011) (“Personal involvement is necessary to establish section 1983 liability.”). However,
the Court will give Plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint to avoid dismissal.
LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013) (“[U]nder Rule 15(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court can allow a plaintiff to amend his complaint even when
the complaint is subject to dismissal under the PLRA [Prison Litigation Reform Act].”).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within 30 days from the entry date of
this Memorandum Opinion and Order, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint which
describes how each Defendant took actions that allegedly caused the deprivation of his
constitutional rights. Plaintiff should also indicate whether he intends to sue these
individuals in their individual (as well as official) capacities and whether he seeks any other
forms of relief.1
The Court will conduct an initial review of Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to
§ 1915A. Should Plaintiff fail to file an amended complaint with the above information
within the allotted amount of time, Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
1
As indicated above, in his complaint, Plaintiff sues some Defendants in their official capacities only. He also seeks
injunctive relief only.
4
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a § 1983 complaint form with this
case number and the word “Amended” written in the caption.
Date:
December 7, 2017
Greg N. Stivers, Judge
United States District Court
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4415.011
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?