Kenney v. Henry et al.
Filing
5
Memorandum of Opinion. This action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.IT IS SO ORDERED. re 1 . Judge Donald C. Nugent on 10/25/2024. (M,S)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DERRICK KENNEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN C. HENRY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:24 CV 1413
JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
Pro se Plaintiff Derrick Kenney, a detainee in the Cuyahoga County Correctional Center,
brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Warden C. Henry, Associate Warden
O’Donnell, and Corrections Officer Cole. In the Complaint, he contends that on May 29, 2024,
Officer Cole walked by his cell and watched him urinate. He asked the officer what he was
doing and the officer replied that he was “just checking [him] out.” (Doc. No. 1 at PageID #: 2).
He claims this action violated his Eighth Amendment rights. He seeks monetary damages.
Standard of Review
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364,
365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the Court is required to
dismiss an in forma pauperis action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of
Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact
when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks
“plausibility in the Complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007). A
pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). The factual allegations in the
pleading must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative level on the
assumption that all the allegations in the Complaint are true. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The
Plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than “an
unadorned, the Defendant unlawfully harmed me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A
pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not meet this pleading standard. Id. In reviewing a Complaint, the Court must construe the
pleading in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151
F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998)
Discussion
Claims pertaining to conditions of confinement in jail arise under either the Eighth
Amendment if the inmate is a convicted prisoner, or under the Fourteenth Amendment Due
Process Clause if the inmate is a pretrial detainee. Plaintiff does not indicate whether he is a
pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner. While the standards for examining this claim under the
Eighth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment differ in the requirements for the subjective
mental state of the Defendant, both standards require Plaintiff to demonstrate that he was held
under conditions which posed an objectively and sufficiently serious threat to his health and
-2-
safety. See Brawner v. Scott Cnty., 14 F.4th 585, 596 (6th Cir. 2021)(Fourteenth Amendment);
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994)(Eighth Amendment). Plaintiff’s Complaint fails
to meet this objective standard under either the Eighth or the Fourteenth Amendment.
The constitution protects inmates by requiring that “officials ... ensure that inmates
receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and ... ‘take reasonable measures to
guarantee the safety of the inmates.’ ” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). It does not
mandate that an inmate be free from discomfort or inconvenience. Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950,
954 (6th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 346). They are not entitled to
unlimited access to the medical treatment of their choice, see Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9
(1992), nor can they “expect the amenities, conveniences and services of a good hotel.” Harris v.
Fleming, 839 F.2d 1232, 1235 (7th Cir.1988); see Thaddeus-X v. Blatter,175 F.3d 378, 405 (6th
Cir. 1999). In sum, the constitution prohibits conditions of confinement which constitute serious
health threats, but does address those conditions which cause the inmate to feel merely
uncomfortable or which cause aggravation or annoyance. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9-10 (requiring
extreme or grave deprivation). Plaintiff complains that the Corrections Officer observed him
while he was urinating in his cell and made a comment that Plaintiff found offensive. That
situation made him feel very uncomfortable. This is not the type of objectively serious situation
to trigger constitutional protections under the Eighth or the Fourteenth Amendments.
Furthermore, Plaintiff cannot hold Warden Henry or Associate Warden O’Donnell liable
for the actions of the corrections officer. A Defendant cannot be held liable simply because he
or she was charged with overseeing a subordinate who may have violated Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights. Peatross v. City of Memphis, 818 F.3d 233, 241 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing
-3-
Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725, 751 (6th Cir. 2006). Instead, individual liability
requires some active unconstitutional behavior on the part of the Defendant. Peatross, 818 F.3d
at 241 (quoting Bass v. Robinson, 167 F.3d 1041, 1048 (6th Cir. 1999)). Consequently, unless
Plaintiff affirmatively pleads the direct involvement of the Defendant in the allegedly
unconstitutional action, the Complaint fails to state a claim against that Defendant and dismissal
is warranted. See Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416, 421 (6th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff has not
alleged that the Warden or Associate Warden was involved in this incident in any way. He fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against them.
Conclusion
Accordingly, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). The Court
certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken
in good faith.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONALD C. NUGENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 25, 2024
1
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides:
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not
taken in good faith.
-4-
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?