Gay v. U.S. Marshals Service

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 8 ) is GRANTED; Plaintiff is ASSESSED the civil filing fee of $350.00; The custodian of Plaintiff's inmate trust account is D IRECTED to submit the filing fee to the Clerk in the manner set for above; The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this memorandum and order to the custodian of inmate accounts at the institution where Plaintiff is now confined and to the Court& #039;s financial deputy; Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and as against a Defendant that is immune; Plaintiff's motion for an emergency hearing (Doc. 2 ) is DENIED as moot; and 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. Signed by District Judge Travis R McDonough on 3/8/21. (cop y mailed to Christopher Daniel Gay 290581 CCA SILVERDALE 7609 STANDIFER GAP ROAD PO BOX 23148 CHATTANOOGA, TN 37422-3148, copy mailed to the custodian of inmate accounts at CCA Silverdale, copy forwarded to Court's financial deputy) (JBR) Modified text on 3/8/2021 (JBR).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
CHRISTOPHER DANIEL GAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES MARSHALS
SERVICE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:21-cv-42
Judge Travis R. McDonough
Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Federal prisoner Christopher Daniel Gay has filed a pro se complaint for a violation of
civil rights under the doctrine announced in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (Doc. 1), along with a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (Doc. 8) and a motion for an emergency hearing (Doc. 2).
I.

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
It appears from the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis that Plaintiff lacks

sufficient financial resources to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
this motion (Doc. 8) will be GRANTED.
Because Plaintiff is an inmate in the Silverdale Detention Facility, he will be ASSESSED
the civil filing fee of $350.00. The custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate trust account will be
DIRECTED to submit to the Clerk, U.S. District Court, 900 Georgia Avenue, Suite 309,
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402, as an initial partial payment, the greater of: (a) twenty percent
(20%) of the average monthly deposits to Plaintiff’s inmate trust account; or (b) twenty percent
(20%) of the average monthly balance in his inmate trust account for the six-month period

Case 1:21-cv-00042-TRM-CHS Document 9 Filed 03/08/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 28

preceding the filing of the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A)–(B). Thereafter, the custodian
of Plaintiff’s inmate trust account shall submit twenty percent (20%) of Plaintiff’s preceding
monthly income (or income credited to Plaintiff’s trust account for the preceding month), but
only when such monthly income exceeds ten dollars ($10.00), until the full filing fee of three
hundred fifty dollars ($350.00) has been paid to the Clerk. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b)(2), 1914(a).
To ensure compliance with this fee-collection procedure, the Clerk will be DIRECTED
to mail a copy of this memorandum and order to the custodian of inmate accounts at the
institution where Plaintiff is now confined. This order shall be placed in Plaintiff’s prison file
and follow him if he is transferred to another correctional institution. The Clerk also will be
DIRECTED to provide a copy to the Court’s financial deputy.
II.

SCREENING STANDARDS
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), district courts must screen prisoner

complaints and shall, at any time, sua sponte dismiss any claims that are frivolous or malicious,
fail to state a claim for relief, or are against a defendant who is immune. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A; Benson v. O’Brian, 179 F.3d 1014 (6th Cir. 1999). The dismissal
standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), “governs dismissals for failure state a claim
under [28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A] because the relevant statutory language tracks the
language in Rule 12(b)(6).” Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470–71 (6th Cir. 2010). Thus, to
survive an initial review under the PLRA, a complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Courts liberally construe pro se pleadings filed in civil
rights cases and hold them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).

2
Case 1:21-cv-00042-TRM-CHS Document 9 Filed 03/08/21 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 29

In order to state a claim under Bivens, a plaintiff must establish that he was deprived of a
federally secured right by a person acting under color of federal law. See Webb v. United States,
789 F.3d 647, 659 (6th Cir. 2015).
III.

ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, who is currently awaiting federal sentencing, was housed at the Hamilton

County Jail until January 4, 2021, when he was moved by deputies from the Hamilton County
Sheriff’s Department to the Silverdale Detention Facility (“SDF”). (Doc. 1, at 1.) Plaintiff
contends that SDF is “not equipped to house federal inmates,” and that the United States
Marshals Service (“USMS”) is violating federal law by allowing him to be placed at SDF, which
lacks, among other things, a law library, access to a grievance process, heat, adequate food
portions, hygiene practices, security, and medical care. (Id. at 2–3.) Plaintiff asks the Court to
move him to a different facility. (Id. at 3.)
IV.

DISCUSSION
A.

Improper Defendant

Where an individual’s constitutional rights are violated by a federal actor, the victim may
have a right to recovery in federal court. See Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 18 (1980). But
relief must be sought against the actors responsible for the violation and not the federal agency
employing those individuals. See, e.g., Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 71–72
(2001); Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 484–86 (1994). Accordingly, Plaintiff
cannot sustain a claim against USMS, which is a federal agency. As Plaintiff has named no
federal officer subject to suit, his complaint will be DISMISSED, and his motion for an
emergency hearing (Doc. 2) will be DENIED as moot.
B.

Absence of Cognizable Claims
1.

Conditions
3

Case 1:21-cv-00042-TRM-CHS Document 9 Filed 03/08/21 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 30

Moreover, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the conditions at SDF, accepted as true, do not
allow the Court to plausibly infer that those conditions violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
Plaintiff’s complaint appears to be premised on the belief that he, as a federal prisoner, is entitled
to different constitutional protections than State prisoners. He is mistaken. Both federal and
State prisoners are protected by the same constitutional protections. That is, prisoners subjected
to “the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” inflicted with “deliberate indifference,” have
suffered a violation of their rights under the Eighth Amendment. Whitley v. Abers, 475 U.S. 312,
319 (1986); Hudson v. McMillan, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992). A prison official acts with deliberate
indifference when the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or
safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). This standard applies to prison
conditions, as well as to prisoner punishments. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 345–46
(1981).
But “[t]he Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons.” Id. at 349. Only
“extreme deprivations” that deny a prisoner “‘the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities”
will establish a claim. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8–9 (citations and quotations omitted). Prison
authorities may not, however, “ignore a condition of confinement that is sure or very likely to
cause serious illness and needless suffering the next week or month or year.” Helling v.
McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993). In examining such claims, the court must determine whether
the risk of which the plaintiff complains is “so grave that it violates contemporary standards of
decency to expose anyone unwillingly to such a risk. In other words, the prisoner must show
that the risk of which he complains is not one that today’s society chooses to tolerate.” Id. at 36;
see also Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347.

4
Case 1:21-cv-00042-TRM-CHS Document 9 Filed 03/08/21 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 31

While Plaintiff generally complains about the conditions under which he is incarcerated,
he has not set forth any factual allegations that would allow the Court to infer that he has
suffered any harm or decline in health. Therefore, nothing in the complaint suggests that the
alleged overcrowding, lack of heat, limited hygiene practices, food portions, sleeping
arrangements, security measures, or medical services have created an unreasonable risk of
damage to Plaintiff’s health. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570 (holding that an allegation that
creates the possibility that a plaintiff might later establish undisclosed facts supporting recovery
does not state a plausible claim for relief).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding his conditions of confinement do not raise
Plaintiff’s right to relief above a speculative level and, therefore, fail to state a claim.
2.

Grievances

To the extent Plaintiff claims that he has no access to a grievance process at SDF, the
Court notes that inmates have no constitutional right to a grievance procedure, nor do they have
any constitutional interest in having any such grievances satisfactorily resolved. LaFlame v.
Montgomery Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 3 F. App’x 346, 348 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Antonelli v.
Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996)). Accordingly, any alleged infirmities the
grievance procedure and/or response at SDF fail to raise a viable constitutional issue.
3.

Access to Courts

Finally, the Court considers Plaintiff’s allegation that inmates do not have full access to a
law library or case files at SDF. The Court construes such an allegation as asserting a claim for
the denial of access to courts. The Supreme Court has held that an inmate has a right of access to
the courts under the First Amendment. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 822 (1977). To establish
a violation of this right, however, a plaintiff must show that his efforts to pursue a non-frivolous

5
Case 1:21-cv-00042-TRM-CHS Document 9 Filed 03/08/21 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 32

legal claim regarding his conviction or conditions of confinement have been obstructed. Lewis v.
Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). Accordingly, a plaintiff must plead and prove that his
meritorious claims have been prejudiced by the alleged denial of access to the courts. Pilgrim v.
Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996). As Plaintiff has alleged no such prejudice, this
claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
V.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, it is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 8) is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff is ASSESSED the civil filing fee of $350.00;
3. The custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate trust account is DIRECTED to submit the filing
fee to the Clerk in the manner set for above;
4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this memorandum and order to the
custodian of inmate accounts at the institution where Plaintiff is now confined and to
the Court’s financial deputy;
5. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, and as against a Defendant that is immune;
6. Plaintiff’s motion for an emergency hearing (Doc. 2) is DENIED as moot; and
7. 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.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Travis R. McDonough
TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
Case 1:21-cv-00042-TRM-CHS Document 9 Filed 03/08/21 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 33