Robinson v. Sullivan County Jail et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Order of Judgment to follow signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 7/29/09. (JGK, ) Copy sent to Court Financial Deputy via NEF.

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

D O N A L D SHANE ROBINSON, JR. v SULLIVAN COUNTY JAIL, LT. S A W Y E R , ALL GUARDS ON SHIFT, S G T .C A R S W E L L , DAVID SHEALY, A S H T O N PHILLIPS, ALDEAN BOWMAN, a n d ALL ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF O N SHIFT

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

N O . 2:09-CV-99 M a t ti c e / C a r t e r

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

D o n ald Shane Robinson, Jr., a prisoner in the Sullivan County Detention Center, b r in g s this pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the violation of rig h ts secured to him by the United States Constitution. Plaintiff has also submitted an a p p lic a tio n to proceed in forma pauperis, which reflects that he lacks sufficient financial re so u rc e s to pay the required filing fee all at once. Plaintiff, however, is not relieved of the u l tim a te responsibility of paying the fee and therefore is ASSESSED the civil filing fee of $ 3 5 0 .0 0 . The custodian of plaintiff's inmate trust account at the institution where he resides s h a ll submit to the Clerk of Court, as an initial partial payment, whichever is the greater of: (a ) twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly deposits to plaintiff's inmate trust account; o r (b) twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly balance in his inmate trust account for

th e six-month period preceding the filing of the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A) and (B ). Thereafter, the custodian shall submit twenty percent (20%) of plaintiff's preceding m o n th ly income (or income credited to his trust account for the preceding month), but only w h e n such monthly income exceeds $10.00, until the full filing fee of $350.00 under has b e e n paid to the Clerk. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Remittances should be mailed to the Clerk, U n i te d States District Court; 220 West Depot Street, Suite 200; Greeneville, Tennessee 37743. T h e Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this order to the custodian of plaintiff's in m a te trust account at the facility wherein he is housed to ensure compliance with above feec o l le c tio n procedures. T h e claims presented in plaintiff's complaint are predicated upon the following factual a lle g a tio n s . On April 30, 2009, at approximately 10:00 a.m., inmates from Cells One, Three, F o u r , and Six were on a recreation yard run. Plaintiff was walking around with another in m ate , when defendant David Shealy approached to discuss an incident involving the two o f them while both were housed in the same unit. Defendant Shealy seemed offended when p la in tif f stated that he did not want to be housed with him and walked away. But, he soon re tu rn e d in the company of two other inmates, defendants Aldean Bowman and Ashton P h illip s . The three inmates--Shealy, Bowman and Phillips--began beating plaintiff, striking h is left cheek and face, and continuing to beat him when he tripped and fell down to the

2

g ro u n d . By this time, plaintiff's nose was pouring blood and his eye was beginning to swell. T h e beating ceased; resumed a short time later; and ended when defendant Shealy kicked p la in tif f in the face, knocking him unconscious. When plaintiff regained consciousness, no g u a rd s , staff members, or other inmates were there to help him. The beating lasted approximately fifteen minutes. Forty minutes later, the guards a r r i v e d at the recreation yard, unaware of the entire episode, though that area was under s u rv e illa n c e. An officer, who noticed plaintiff's injuries, asked him what happened, then c a lle d the medical staff. Defendant Carswell and others questioned him about the assault and th e medical staff concluded that plaintiff needed to go to the hospital for further evaluation o f his severe injuries. Plaintiff charges that he was not provided the proper medication and tre a tm e n t for his injuries. [Compl. at ¶ 5, "Relief"]. Afterwards, plaintiff filed a grievance, inquiring as to what measures had been taken a g a in st his assailants. The response was that they had been charged with aggravated assault. F o r the alleged violation of his rights to reasonable protection while confined, plaintiff seeks f if te e n million dollars [$15,000,000] in damages and various other forms of relief. The Court now must screen the complaint to determine whether it should be dismissed a s frivolous, malicious or for failure to state a claim or whether monetary damages are sought f ro m a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A. 1 . Defendants. At the outset, several of the defendants cannot remain as parties in this lawsuit. The

3

S u lliv a n County Jail is a building and not a "person" subject to suit under § 1983. Monell v . Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 688-90 (1978); Cage v. Kent County C o rr e c tio n a l Facility, 1997 WL 225647, at **1 (6th Cir. May 1, 1997) (jail is not a suable e n tity). Secondly, three of the defendants are inmates. To state a viable § 1983 claim, a p l a in t if f must allege: 1) that he was denied a right privilege or immunity secured by the c o n stitu tio n or laws of the United States; and 2) that the deprivation was caused by a person a c tin g under color of state law. Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155 (1978). Plaintiff h a s failed to show the second element, that is, the deprivation was caused by a person acting u n d e r color of state law since there is nothing to show that defendants Shealy, Bowman and P h illip s -- a ll inmates--were state actors when they assaulted plaintiff. Finally, though plaintiff has named as defendants "All Guards on Shift" and "All A d m in is tra tio n and Staff on Shift," he has made no allegations whatsoever against them. T h e r e f o r e , for all these reasons, plaintiff has failed to state a valid § 1983 claim against these s ix defendants. The Court now turns now to the two claims asserted in the complaint. 2 . Medical Claim. In passing, plaintiff complains that he was not provided proper medications and t r e a tm e n t for his injuries. To the extent that plaintiff intended this assertion even to be a c laim (the allegation was contained, not in the "Statement of Claim" section of the complaint,

4

b u t in the "Relief"section), there are no allegations of fact to flesh it out. But overlooking th e skeletal nature of the claim, punishments which involve the unnecessary and wanton in f lic tio n of pain are proscribed by the Eighth Amendment. Deliberate indifference to the se rio u s medical needs of prisoners constitutes an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain a n d , therefore, a violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 1 0 4 (1976). Here, however, there is no description of a serious medical need--"injuries" being in s u f f ic ie n t to satisfy that requirement--nor any allegation from which to infer that any d e f e n d a n t possessed the necessary state of mind of deliberate indifference. 3. Failure to Protect. P lain tiff 's allegations concerning the beating implicate the duty the Eighth A m e n d m e n t imposes on prison officials to protect those under their care from violence at the h a n d s of other inmates. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828-29 (1994). To state a claim o f deliberate indifference for failing to protect plaintiff from harm inflicted by other inmates, p la in tif f must establish that he was subject to a substantial risk of injury, but also show that a defendant aware of facts from which he could draw an inference that an excessive risk of s e rio u s harm existed and that he actually drew that inference. Id. at 837. Plaintiff's allegations fall short: the complaint is devoid of any facts to prove that c o n d itio n s on the recreation yard posed an excessive risk of harm to him and that a defendant d is p la ye d deliberate indifference to the risk. Plaintiff does not maintain that there was

5

p r e v io u s hostility between himself and his assailants or that he had reported that they p re se n ted an excessive danger to him. Nor does plaintiff assert that any particular inmate a llo w e d on the recreation yard at the relevant time, including the assailants, had a history of v i o l e n c e or a tendency to commit violent acts and that this heightened the risk of serious in j u ry to him. Moreover, plaintiff has not alleged that any defendant knew of any of these ris k s , but disregarded them. Absent any contentions concerning an excessive risk or k n o w led g e of that risk on the part of a defendant, plaintiff fails to state a viable Eighth A m e n d m e n t claim. Based on the above analysis, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a claim e n titlin g him to relief and concludes that his case should be dismissed. A separate order shall enter..

ENTER:

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

6