Battle v. Hinds County Detention Center et al

Filing 16

ORDER. For the reasons stated, the Court DISMISSES the claims against Hinds County Detention Center WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. The remainder of this case shall proceed. Signed by District Judge Kristi H. Johnson on 11/22/2024 (PG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
PAUL DEANTHONY BATTLE
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-168-KHJ-MTP

HINDS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
This case is before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Pro
se Plaintiff Paul DeAnthony Battle is a pretrial detainee at the Tallahatchie County
Correctional Facility. See Envelope [1-2]. He brings this Section 1983 action for
damages, challenging the conditions of his prior confinement at the Hinds County
Detention Center. Compl. [1] at 4–5. The Court has considered and liberally
construed the pleadings. As set forth below, Defendant Hinds County Detention
Center is dismissed.
I.

Background
Battle is currently being held at the Tallahatchie County Correctional

Facility, but this case concerns his time at the Hinds County Detention Center in
Raymond, Mississippi. See [1]; [1-2]. He brings this case against Defendants Hinds
County Detention Center, Hinds County Sheriff Tyree Jones, and Hinds County
Sheriff’s Office employees Lieutenant Nelson Tyler, Sergeant Scott, Officer Terrell,
Officer Dobtson, and Officer Brittany Milton. Resp. to Order [14] at 1; [1] at 1–2.

Generally, Battle complains of excessive force, denial of medical treatment, and his
time on lockdown. [1] at 4–5; [14] at 1, 3.
First, Battle claims that, on October 24, 2023, he fled his housing unit out of
fear for his safety. [1] at 4. When he did so, Scott allegedly pointed a taser at his
head. Id. Battle claims he raised both his hands and was slowly backing away when
Scott tased him in the chest, even though he was not resisting. Id. Scott then
allegedly tased Battle twice more while Battle was on the ground. Id. The third tase
allegedly lasted fifteen minutes and caused Battle to urinate on himself. Resp. to
Order [12] at 3; [1] at 4.
Battle contends Scott then put him in a lockdown cell, without a shower or
medical attention. [12] at 3–4. Battle was allegedly inside the cell 24 hours a day for
20 days, without a shower or phone call. Id. at 4. He further maintains that he
asked for medical attention for burn marks on his chest every day while in lockdown
but was denied. Id. at 3. Specifically, he claims that he asked Scott every day, asked
Dobston at least once, and asked Milton once about a week after the tasing, but
they did not get him medical attention. [14] at 1.
One week after Battle was released from lockdown, he alleges that Tyler
ordered Terrell to put Battle back in lockdown, after Tyler searched his cell and
found a cell phone in a mattress that the jail issued to Battle. [12] at 1–2; [1] at 5.
Both times he was put in lockdown, he maintains he had just received commissary
items, which were taken by Tyler and stolen by other inmates. [12] at 1–2; [1] at 4–
5. He estimates the total loss of commissary items to be $350. [1] at 5.

2

As for the conditions on lockdown, Battle claims there was blood on the floor
and toilet and feces “all over the wall.” [12] at 2. He alleges he was without
blankets, clothes, a toothbrush, or toothpaste because they were left in his regular
cell. Id.
On March 25, 2024, Battle filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
asserts excessive force, denial of medical treatment and due process, and
unreasonable search and seizure claims. [12] at 1–4; [14] at 1–2. Battle also brings
these claims against Sheriff Jones because they allegedly occurred “under his
supervision.” [12] at 1.
II.

Analysis
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 applies to prisoners proceeding in

forma pauperis in this Court. It provides that the Court “shall dismiss the case at
any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). The statute “accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a
claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to
pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose
factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32
(1992) (cleaned up). “[I]n an action proceeding under [S]ection 1915[], [a federal
court] may consider, sua sponte, affirmative defenses that are apparent from the
record even where they have not been addressed or raised . . . .” Ali v. Higgs, 892

3

F.2d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 1990). “Significantly, the [C]ourt is authorized to test the
proceeding for frivolousness or maliciousness even before service of process or before
the filing of the answer.” Id. The Court has permitted Battle to proceed in forma

pauperis in this action. So his [1] Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal
under Section 1915.
Battle sues, among others, the Hinds County Detention Center under Section
1983. The jail’s capacity to be sued is determined according to state law. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 17(b)(3). Under Mississippi law, a jail is not a separate legal entity capable of
being sued; rather, it is considered an extension of the county. Tuesno v. Jackson,
No. 5:08-CV-302, 2009 WL 1269750, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 30, 2009); cf. Brown v.

Thompson, 927 So. 2d 733, 737 (Miss. 2006) (sheriff’s departments). Thus, the
Hinds County Detention Center is not a proper party and should be dismissed.
III.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated, the Court DISMISSES the claims against Hinds

County Detention Center WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. The remainder of this
case shall proceed. The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order to Battle at
his address of record.
SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of November, 2024.
s/ Kristi H. Johnson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4