Claiborne v. Bradley

Filing 12

Memorandum Opinion and Order Dismissing Warden Bradley re 1 Complaint. For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion and Order, Defendant Warden Bradley (W.C.C.F.) should be, and is hereby, dismissed with prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on February 16, 2016. (lda)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION

TOMMIEL QUENPONTA CLAIBORNE,
# 191617
VERSUS

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15cv118-DCB-MTP

WARDEN BRADLEY and MRS. DIXON

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING WARDEN BRADLEY
This matter is before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Pro se
Plaintiff Tommiel Quenponta Claiborne is incarcerated with the Mississippi Department of
Corrections. He brings this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the conditions of
his confinement. The Court has considered and liberally construed the pleadings. As set forth
below, the Court holds that Defendant Warden Bradley should be dismissed. The case shall
proceed against Defendant Mrs. Dixon.
BACKGROUND
On December 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant action. While he is currently housed at
the East Mississippi Correctional Facility, he complains about his prior confinement at the
Wilkinson County Correctional Facility. Defendants Warden Bradley and Mrs. Dixon are both
employed at that prison.
Plaintiff alleges that, when he first arrived at Wilkinson County, Dixon intentionally
denied him a mattress, even though all the other prisoners had one. Because of this Plaintiff
claims he was forced to sleep on an iron rack, which hurt his back. Plaintiff contends that he
kept asking for a mat but did not receive one until four days later.
Plaintiff contends that Dixon thus violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from

cruel and unusual punishment and his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. Plaintiff
also brings these claims against Warden Bradley, because “he was the emplo[y]er of the person
that violated my civil rights.” (Pl.’s 2d Aff.).
DISCUSSION
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, applies to prisoners proceeding in forma
pauperis in this Court. The statute reads, in pertinent part, “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).
“[I]n an action proceeding under [28 U.S.C. § 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 F.2d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 1990). “Significantly, the court 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 Plaintiff to proceed in
forma pauperis in this action. His Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal under § 1915.
Warden Bradley is sued under § 1983 based solely on his role as Mrs. Dixon’s
supervisor. “There is no vicarious or respondeat superior liability of supervisors under section
1983.” Rios v. City of Del Rio, 444 F.3d 417, 425 (5th Cir. 2006). The supervisor must either be
personally involved in the violation or otherwise have caused the violation. Id. Plaintiff

2

confines his claim against Bradley to vicarious liability and does not allege that he caused the
violation. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Bradley under § 1983.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, for the reasons stated above,
Defendant Warden Bradley should be, and is hereby, dismissed with prejudice for failure to state
a claim. This dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The remainder of the
case shall proceed.
So ordered and adjudged, this the 16th day of February, 2016.
s/David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3