Thomas v. Reece
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Directing Monthly Payments be made from Prison Account of James Craig Thomas. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, (Doc. 3), and he is ASSESSED the civil filing fee of three h undred and fifty dollars ($350). The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of plaintiffs application, the deficiency order, and this order to Johnson County Sheriff Mike Reece. Sheriff Reece SHALL provide to the Court, within twenty (20) days of the date on this order, either: 1) a certified copy of plaintiffs inmate trust account statement or 2) a statement, signed by an authorized person, evidencing that the Johnson County jail does not maintain prisoner trust accounts. Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to send plaintiff a service packet. (The packet contains a blank summons and USM 285 form.) Plaintiff is ORDERED to complete the service packet and to return it to the Clerk's office within twenty (20) days of the date on this Order. Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to return the completed service packets within the time required could jeopardize his prosecution of this action. When the completed service packet is received by the Clerk, the summons will be signed and sea led by the Clerk and forwarded to the U.S. Marshal for service upon defendant Sheriff. Defendant is ORDERED to respond to the complaint in the manner and within the time required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 5/17/2013. (c/m to pro se plaintiff along with USM 285 form and summons)(c/m to Sheriff Mike Reece)(RLC, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at GREENEVILLE
JAMES CRAIG THOMAS
v.
SHERIFF MIKE REECE
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 2:13-cv-104
Greer/Inman
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
This pro se prisoner’s civil rights complaint and proposed class action lawsuit under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, is before the Court upon plaintiff James Craig Thomas’s response to a deficiency
order.1
I. Filing Fee
The certificate section the in forma pauperis application plaintiff returned to the Court is
blank, but, in a separate letter, plaintiff explains that he has attempted to acquire the necessary
information from Mindy Forrester, a Notary Public, and, presumably, an officer at the Johnson
County Detention Center (“JCDC”) wherein plaintiff is housed, but has been unsuccessful in that
endeavor. Submitted along with the letter is a “STATE INMATE REQUEST” form, which bears
the heading, “Johnson County Sheriff’s Office Mike Reece - Sheriff.” The “request” section of the
form indicates that plaintiff was renewing a previous request for notarization of legal mail from his
lawyer’s office. Underneath the request is this handwritten response: “I’ll try to get to it today, if
not remind me tomorrow.” The signature is illegible, but the response is dated “4/30/13.”
1
The order also required the other fourteen prisoners who were listed as plaintiffs to correct deficiencies
identified in their submissions and the Court had attached to the order blank preprinted in forma pauperis applications
to facilitate their responses. Only plaintiff James Craig Thomas responded to the order and submitted the in forma
pauperis application, an indication to the Court that the other prisoners have no interest in prosecuting this action, much
less in pursuing class action status.
Although the in forma pauperis application sent to plaintiff would have been contained in
mail from the Court and although plaintiff’s request for notary service specifically identified legal
mail from his attorney as containing the item(s) which needed to be notarized, it remains that
plaintiff is alleging that he has been unable to obtain the necessary signatures of the authorized
JCDC employee on plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application. Failing to provide the certified
statement of plaintiff inmate trust account conceivably could inhibit his ability to prosecute his §
1983 case.
However, in McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601(6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other
grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007), the Sixth Circuit instructed that inmates are not to
be penalized due to the recalcitrance of prison officials and that "a case may not be dismissed when
the payment of an assessment has been delayed by prison officials." Id. at 607-08. Despite the
importance of the missing trust account statement, id. at 607 (calling the trust account the "key to
the assessment procedure"), because plaintiff's efforts to obtain it from jail authorities have been
unsuccessful, and because he is not at fault for the omission, his case will advance in the typical
fashion.
Thus, plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, (Doc. 3), and he
is ASSESSED the civil filing fee of three hundred and fifty dollars ($350).
The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of plaintiff’s application, the deficiency order, and
this order to Johnson County Sheriff Mike Reece, who may not have been aware of this lawsuit,
much less the events describing plaintiff’s claimed efforts to obtain the statement required by federal
law. Even so, the Court needs the certified portion of the application to be completed to determine
whether to establish a periodic payment plan for collection of the filing fee assessed against plaintiff.
2
Thus, Sheriff Reece SHALL provide to the Court, within twenty (20) days of the date on this order,
either: 1) a certified copy of plaintiff’s inmate trust account statement or 2) a statement, signed by
an authorized person, evidencing that the Johnson County jail does not maintain prisoner trust
accounts. When the Court has this information, it can determine whether, as in the typical prisoner
case, the assessed filing fee can be collected under an installment payment plan or whether there is
no inmate trust fund from which to collect the payments.2
While the Court’s actions should not be taken as an expression of opinion as to the
correctness of the allegations made in plaintiff’s motion, Sheriff Reece may wish to determine
whether prisoners housed in the JCDC have been hindered in meeting their filing fee obligations
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).
The Court proceeds to screen the complaint.
II. Screening the Complaint
The complaint must now be reviewed to determine whether it states a claim entitling plaintiff
to relief or is frivolous or malicious or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A. If so, this suit must be dismissed. Moreover, pro
2
This problem seems to be a recurring one for inmates in the Johnson County Detention Center and may
impact the right of access to the courts constitutionally guaranteed to those prisoners. See Johnson v. Cupp, Civil Action
No. 2:12-cv-144, (Doc. 1, Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees at 3. Immediately below the line for the
signature of the authorized officer in the “Certificate” section of the form, is this handwritten notation: “Not signed by
officer[.] Refused and I will pay you monthly when I get out and until then my wife will in money orders.”); Johnson
v. Reece, Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-231, (Doc. 4, Deficiency Order, noting that plaintiff, in his in forma pauperis
application, alleged that an officer had refused to sign plaintiff’s trust fund statement and advising plaintiff to show a
copy of the order to the officer to inform the officer of the importance of assisting plaintiff in complying with the federal
statutory filing fee requirements for prisoners); Pritchard v. Smith, Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-211, (Doc. 5, Prisoner’s
letter, stating: “I talked to the jail accountent (sic) and she said you’ll have to send her something she can sign and release
this information to you. . . .”); Smith v. Gentry, Civil Action No. 2:04-cv-442, (Doc. 5, Prisoner’s letter alleging, that
“[i]t is hard for any inmate here in this facility to get cops (sic) of there (sic) paperwork. No one has ever got time to
get copys (sic) of the paperwork you need. . . . . According to Mrs. Terrill no inmate doesn’t (sic) need copies of their
paperwork.”).
3
se pleadings are to be generously construed and "held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). All well-pleaded allegations in the complaint will be taken as
true and the factual allegations will be considered to determine whether “they plausibly suggest an
entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009). The Court examines the
complaint in light of those requirements.
1. Plaintiff’s Allegations
In his complaint, the plaintiff makes the allegations which follow. The conditions in the
JCDC are unsanitary and the facility is overcrowded, with three and four inmates housed in cells
designed for two persons. Inmates are forced to sleep in other people’s urine on the floor and
fighting breaks out. The inmates are being starved because the food they are served lacks a
sufficient amount of calories and nutritional content. For example, breakfast is a 120-calorie, eightounce glass of 2% milk, a very small biscuit, and either a very small bowl of oatmeal or gravy; lunch
is a very small sandwich and no beverage is provided. The JCDC makes money by selling food to
the inmates who are being starved, a practice which plaintiff characterizes as extortion. If prisoners
complain, they are threatened with a transfer to another facility far away from their families.
Medical care is lacking also, as medications are dispensed at all hours, including to diabetic
inmates who have no set time for receiving their medications. Inmates with blood pressure problems
sometimes receive their medications at 11:00 p.m.
These complaints have been exhausted through the JCDC inmate grievance procedure but
no one (meaning no JCDC jailer or officer) will sign the grievance so that it can be sent to the Court
with the complaint.
4
Plaintiff asks for injunctive relief. More specifically, plaintiff requests that a full scale
investigation be conducted into the Johnson County Sheriff’s Department; that a dietician evaluate
the menu served to inmates; that the JCDC be required to supply inmates with food of sufficient
nutritional value and to pay for dental and medical treatment for the inmates, rather than asking the
inmates to pay their own bills; and that the overcrowding be remedied, so that inmates do not fight
for space and are not forced to sleep on the floor. Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages for the
wrongs visited upon the inmates at the JCDC by housing them under these alleged unconstitutional
conditions.
2. Law and Analysis
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution proscribes punishments which
involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991);
Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). "[T]he treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the
conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment."
Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). An Eighth Amendment claim has both an objective
and a subjective component. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). The objective
component requires the plaintiff to show a “sufficiently serious” deprivation. Id. Where prison
conditions are concerned, the objective factor is satisfied by a condition which denies the prisoner
“the minimum civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Ibid. The subjective component requires
a showing of a sufficiently culpable state of mind—one of deliberate indifference. Id. at 842.
Deliberate indifference is illustrated by a prison official who acts or fails to act despite knowledge
of a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate under his care. Id.
First of all, plaintiff’s assertions concern inmates who fight,are forced to sleep on the floor
5
in other people’s urine, or have diabetes, blood pressure problems, or some other need which
requires medications to be given at a set time. However, plaintiff does not indicate that he himself
has fought with other inmates because of the overcrowded conditions in the JCDC, that he himself
has been forced to sleep on the floor, or that he himself has diabetes or problems with his blood
pressure or a need for medications to be dispensed at a certain time.
Plaintiff has failed to show he has standing to pursue claims concerning the constitutionality
of the living conditions of his fellow prisoners. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990) (A
prisoner must assert his own rights, not those of other inmates.). Such a claim could only be asserted
if plaintiff himself could show any personal injury sustained as a result of the complained of
conditions. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962). He has not done so. See ACLU v. Nat’l Sec.
Agency, 493 F.3d 644, 659 (6th Cir. 2007) (observing that the standing doctrine “applies to every
claim sought to be litigated in federal court”).
The one possible exception to the lack of standing is the allegation regarding the quantity
and nutritional content of the food which is served to inmates at the JCDC. Since plaintiff is a
prisoner confined in the JCDC, it is obvious that he must rely on the authorities in that facility to
supply him with food. Prison officials must provide a reasonably adequate diet to prisoners; serving
food which does not contain nutritional and caloric content necessary to sustain a prisoner’s normal
health amounts to cruel and unusual punishment and violates the Eighth Amendment. Cunningham
v. Jones, 567 F.2d 653 (6th Cir. 1977). Because plaintiff has stated an arguable Eighth Amendment
claim involving the food which he is served as a prisoner in the JCDC, this one allegation will be
allowed to proceed.
6
III. Service
Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to send plaintiff a service packet. (The packet
contains a blank summons and USM 285 form.) Plaintiff is ORDERED to complete the service
packet and to return it to the Clerk's office within twenty (20) days of the date on this Order.
Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to return the completed service packets within the time
required could jeopardize his prosecution of this action.
When the completed service packet is received by the Clerk, the summons will be signed and
sealed by the Clerk and forwarded to the U.S. Marshal for service upon defendant Sheriff.
Defendant is ORDERED to respond to the complaint in the manner and within the time required
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to inform the Court of any address change within ten (10) days
following such change. He is further cautioned his failure to do so will result in a dismissal of this
action for failure to prosecute.
ENTER:
s/J. RONNIE GREER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
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?