Gilliam v. Sequatchie County Tennessee Sheriffs Dept. et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER- this action will be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915(A). Signed by District Judge Travis R McDonough on 8/3/2016. (CNC, ) Mailed to Rodney Gilliam (CNC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
RODNEY CLINT GILLIAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
SEQUATCHIE COUNTY TENNESSEE
SHERIFF’S DEPT.; SHERIFF RONNIE
HITCHCOCK; JAIL ADMINISTRATOR
CLINT WALKER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:14-CV-187
Judge Travis R. McDonough
Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This is a pro se prisoner civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As the
Court previously noted, Plaintiff’s complaint consists of a factually unsupported claim that while
he was incarcerated in the Sequatchie County Jail during 2014, he was subjected to
discrimination by Defendants. (Doc. 10, at 1.) Specifically, in its previous order screening the
complaint, the Court stated that, in addition to failing to provide sufficient factual support for his
condition of confinement claims, the complaint failed to specify the capacity in which Plaintiff
had sued Defendants, failed to state a claim against Defendants in their official or individual
capacities, and failed to describe the unconstitutional actions in which Plaintiff alleged that
Defendants had engaged. (Id. at 2.) Nevertheless, as Plaintiff could have potentially cured these
deficiencies, the Court allowed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within twenty days after
the screening order was entered on July 24, 2014. (Id.) In doing so, the Court notified Plaintiff
that the amended complaint would replace his complaint and that if his amended complaint failed

1 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, it would be dismissed without further leave to
amend. (Id. at 3.)
On August 24, 2015, more than twenty days after the screening order is deemed to have
been served on Plaintiff,1 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 11.) While the amended
complaint provides a few more factual details regarding Plaintiff’s claim for discrimination, it
was not filed in a timely manner,2 fails to cure all of the deficiencies that the Court had noted in
Plaintiff’s original complaint, and only provides conclusory allegations of discrimination. Thus,
the amended complaint fails to state a claim for discrimination upon which relief may be granted
under § 1983. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (holding that a plaintiff’s
allegations that he was treated harshly only because of discriminatory factors failed to state a
claim because they were conclusory and did not plausibly suggest discrimination on prohibited
grounds).
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, this action will be DISMISSED for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915(A). The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not
be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. See Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure.
AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER.

1

As the Court’s screening order would have been mailed to Plaintiff when it was entered on July
24, 2014, the Court finds that Plaintiff would have been served with that order on July 28, 2014,
under Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2

As the Court finds that Plaintiff would have been served with its screening order on July 28,
2014, Plaintiff’s amended complaint would have had to have been signed by Plaintiff on or
before August 18, 2014, in order to have been filed within the twenty-day deadline the Court set
for that filing. Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 925 (6th Cir. 2008) (noting that the signing date
on a pro se prisoner’s pleading will be deemed to be the filing date, unless there is evidence to
the contrary).
2 

/s/ Travis R. McDonough
TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3