Presnell v. Ray et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. A separate order will enter Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 12/9/09. (JGK, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE a t GREENEVILLE

M O R G A N PRESNELL

) ) v. ) ) R O B IN RAY, Washington County District ) A tto rn e y's Office; TOM BURLESON, ) T .D .O .C . of Tennessee; JEFF KELLY, ) P u b lic Defender's Office of Tennessee; ) W A S H IN G T O N COUNTY DETENTION ) C T R .; CARTER COUNTY DETENTION ) C T R .; DR. PINYARD, Washington County ) D e ten tio n Ctr.; DR. PAUL, Carter County ) D e te n tio n Ctr.; COMPREHENSIVE ) C O M M U N IT Y SERVICES; MRS. ) A M B R O S E ; CROSSROADS PROBATION; ) C IN D Y BROOKS; BILL HAMPTON (Att'y); ) and DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ) (Carter County) )

NO. 2:09-cv-67 M a t t i c e /L e e

M E M O R A N D U M and ORDER

M o rg a n Presnell, a pro se litigant and former prisoner, brings this civil rights a c tio n pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against various defendants alleging several c o n stitu tio n a l infringements. Plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing f e e is GRANTED . [Doc. 1]. Plaintiff asserts, in his complaint, that he was subjected to false imprisonment f o r eighteen and a half months in the Washington County and Carter County Detention C e n te rs , denied medications, refused legal mail, and held in a felony block on misdemeanor

c h a rg e s. As a result of the alleged false imprisonment, plaintiff lost eighteen and a half m o n th s of his life, custody of his two children, his home, and his SSI disability and had to s le e p in his car for eight months. He further asserts that he has legal documentation and w itn e ss e s to prove his allegations but that he would like summonses issued for two people to add to the proof he already has. For these claimed constitutional violations, plaintiff seeks fiv e million dollars in damages, any other relief to which he may be entitled, and a jury to try h is case. Finally, plaintiff asks that the statute of limitations be extended until he can obtain an attorney. He has consulted three attorneys so far. I . Screening Procedure T h e Court must now review the complaint to determine whether it states a c la im entitling plaintiff to relief or is frivolous or malicious or seeks monetary relief from a d e f e n d a n t who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); McGore v.

W rig g les w o rth , 114 F.3d 601, 609 (6th Cir. 1997) (finding that section 1915(e)(2) applies to complaints filed in forma pauperis by prisoners and non-prisoners alike). If the complaint d o e s not state a claim or is frivolous, malicious, or seeks damages from an immune d e f en d a n t, this suit must be dismissed. II . The Claims A . False Imprisonment. T h e Supreme Court has found that claims of the type asserted here must be a n a lo g iz e d to a common-law action for malicious prosecution because that cause, unlike a

2

to rt of false imprisonment, permits damages for confinement imposed pursuant to legal p ro c e s s . Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484 (1994). Among the permissible damages are "c o m p en sa tio n for any arrest or imprisonment, including damages for discomfort or injury to his health, or loss of time and deprivation of the society." Id., (citation omitted). Even so, the analogy does not help plaintiff. It is well-settled law that if a jud g m en t in favor of a plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his state court c o n v ic tio n or sentence, his § 1983 action for damages must be dismissed, unless he can d e m o n s tra te "that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged b y executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such a d e te rm in a tio n , or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas c o rp u s ." Id., at 486. In other words, "no cause of action exists unless a conviction has been le g a lly eliminated." Schilling v. White, 58 F.3d 1081, 1086 (6th Cir. 1995). Were plaintiff to obtain a judgment finding that he had been wrongfully confined, this of necessity would im p ly that his state court conviction or sentence is not valid. There is no indication that p lain tiff 's conviction has been ruled invalid and thus, under Heck, he fails to state a § 1983 c la im for damages due to "false imprisonment" at this time. This claim will be dismissed w ith o u t prejudice. B . Denial of Medications and Legal Mail. In this claim, plaintiff maintains that he was denied medications "for mental h e a lth reasons" and legal mail from this Court. However, there are insufficient allegations

3

o f fact to support these claims. No information has been supplied to identify the person(s) w h o denied the medications or mail or when those denials occurred. A court need not c o n ju re up facts not pled to support conclusory allegations. Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy S h o p s , Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 1988). As it is, these contentions are conclusory; c o n c lu s o ry contentions do not state a claim for relief. Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 8 2 9 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 1987). Furthermore, while prison authorities who are deliberately indifferent to the s e rio u s medical needs of prisoners violate the Eighth Amendment rights of those prisoners, E ste ll e v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976), the Court sees no constitutional claim here. There is nothing to indicate deliberate indifference because plaintiff has not connected any d e f e n d a n t to the denial of medication, much less made factual allegations regarding the state o f mind of an unidentified defendant. C. Housing of Misdemeanants. P la in tif f contends that he was held in a felony block, though he was held on m isd e m e a n o r charges, and that housing him with felons violated his right to be confined in a misdemeanor block. Plaintiff, however, has failed to cite to any authority, and the Court k n o w s of none, which would support the premise that he possesses any such a right or that th e questioned housing arrangement violates the Constitution. Indeed, plaintiff has no c o n stitu tio n a lly-p ro te c te d entitlement to be confined in any particular facility or any p a rtic u la r area of the jail. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1983). Thus, his

4

a lle g a tio n s fail to state a claim for relief under § 1983. I I I . Conclusion. F o r the aforementioned reasons, none of plaintiff's allegations state a claim e n titlin g him to relief under § 1983. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). This lawsuit will be dismissed a c c o r d i n g l y. A separate order shall enter.

ENTER:

/s/Harry S. Mattice, Jr. HARRY S. MATTICE, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5