Hughes v. Gallion et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a service packet for Defendant Gallion. Plaintiff is ORDERED to complete the service packet and return it to the Clerk's Office within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. See Order for details. Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 12/16/2015. (C/M of Order and Service Packet). (LMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE
MARTIN E. HUGHES,
Plaintiff,
v.
LIEUTENANT BUTCH GALLION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.: 2:15-cv-30-JRG-MCLC

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

While he was a pretrial detainee in the Hamblen County Detention Center, Martin E.
Hughes brought this pro se civil rights complaint for injunctive and monetary relief under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging, among other claims, claims for interference with his legal mail and
denial of medical care, which purportedly occurred while he was detained in the Hawkins
County Detention Center [HCDC] [Doc. 1].

The Court entered an order dismissing all

Defendants, except Defendant Butch Gallion, and all claims, save these two claims [Doc. 10].
As to these claims, the Court offered Plaintiff the opportunity to amend them because, as they
stood, they were insufficient to state a claim. See LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th
Cir. 2013).
Plaintiff’s invited amended complaint, filed as a response, is now before the Court [Doc.
12]. In this pleading, Plaintiff alleges that incoming mail from this Court and his attorney and
other purported legal sources was confiscated, photocopied out of his presence, and misdirected,
and that the originals were not contained in his property when he was transferred to another
facility. Plaintiff further claims that Defendant Gallion trained his officers to treat mail in this

fashion. In the complaint, Plaintiff contended that his outgoing legal mail, including a civil
rights complaint against Defendant Gallion, likewise was interfered with and that this mailhandling method was unlawful and was employed pursuant to a policy established by Defendant
Gallion.
The Court does not find these allegations, as more fully developed in the amendment, to
be frivolous or malicious and cannot say that they do not state a claim which would entitle
Plaintiff to relief under § 1983. Accordingly, this claim may advance against Defendant Gallion.
In the same vein, Plaintiff maintains that he named other officers in his pleading, such as
Correctional Officers Casey Ferguson and Godsey, Johnson, Sawyers, Henard, “and more.” An
examination of the complaint shows that Plaintiff named none of the officers as Defendants in
the caption of his complaint, did not list them as Defendants in the “PARTIES” section of his
complaint, and did not seek relief from any supposed wrongful conduct committed by these
officers in the “RELIEF” section of his complaint [Doc. 1 p. 1,3,5]. Hence, Plaintiff’s allegation
regarding these officers being named as Defendants is groundless and frivolous.
Plaintiff did not amend his allegations regarding the denial of medical care, and this
claim is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b).
Included in the pleading is Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the dismissal of his
claims for injunctive relief. The Court found that Plaintiff’s transfer from the HCDC rendered
moot his claims for injunctive relief from alleged untoward conditions and illegal mail-handling
policy at that facility. Indeed, the claims were moot ab initio since Plaintiff had already been
transferred from the HCDC when the complaint was filed. The Court sees no reason to reach a
different conclusion with regard to the mootness of those claims for injunctive relief and,
therefore, DENIES Plaintiff’s request.

2

The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a service packet (a blank summons and USM
285 form) for Defendant Gallion. Plaintiff is ORDERED to complete the service packet and
return it to the Clerk's Office within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. At that time, the
summons will be signed and sealed by the Clerk and forwarded to the U.S. Marshal for service.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to return the completed service packet
within the time required could jeopardize his prosecution of this action.
Also, Plaintiff SHALL promptly notify the Court of any address changes and he is
ADVISED that his failure so to do, within ten (10) days of any such change, will result in the
dismissal of this lawsuit for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:

s/J. RONNIE GREER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3