Fritts v. Loudon County et al (VVV)

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; The defendants are the Loudon County Sheriff's Department and Correctional Officers A. Ryner and Jordan Samuels. The Loudon County Sheriff's Department is not a suable entity within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and it is DISMISSED from this action. Plaintiff will have 20 days from the date hereof to amend his complaint to state exactly how his constitutional rights were violated and the specific defendant or defendants who violated his constitutional rights. Signed by District Judge Pamela L Reeves on 11/19/14. (c/m)(ADA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE

CHRISTOPHER CURTIS FRITTS,
#499052,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOUDON COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT, CORRECTIONAL
OFFICER A. RYNER, and
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JORDAN
SAMUELS, 1
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.: 3:14-cv-389-PLR-HBG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This is a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In order
to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must establish that he was deprived of a
federal right by a person acting under color of state law. Black v. Barberton Citizens
Hospital, 134 F.3d 1265, 1267 (6th Cir. 1998); O'Brien v. City of Grand Rapids, 23 F.3d
990, 995 (6th Cir. 1994); Russo v. City of Cincinnati, 953 F.2d 1036, 1042 (6th Cir.
1992). See also Braley v. City of Pontiac, 906 F.2d 220, 223 (6th Cir. 1990) ("Section

1

This action was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
and transferred to this Court. The Western District directed its Clerk to record the defendants as
Loudon County and Lenoir City. Upon further review, this Court finds that the defendants are
the Loudon County Sheriff's Department and Correctional Officers A. Ryner and Jordan
Samuels. The Clerk is DIRECTED to correct the docket sheet to reflect the proper defendants.

1983 does not itself create any constitutional rights; it creates a right of action for the
vindication of constitutional guarantees found elsewhere.").
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), district courts must screen
prisoner complaints and sua sponte dismiss those that are frivolous or malicious, fail to
state a claim for relief, or are against a defendant who is immune. See, e.g., Benson v.
O'Brian, 179 F.3d 1014 (6th Cir. 1999).
Responding to a perceived deluge of frivolous lawsuits, and, in particular,
frivolous prisoner suits, Congress directed the federal courts to review or
"screen" certain complaints sua sponte and to dismiss those that failed to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted, that sought monetary
relief from a defendant immune from such relief, or that were frivolous or
malicious.
Id. at 1015-16 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A).
Plaintiff is in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction.

His

complaint concerns events that took place at the Loudon County Jail in Lenoir City,
Tennessee.

The defendants are the Loudon County Sheriff's Department and

Correctional Officers A. Ryner and Jordan Samuels.

The Loudon County Sheriff's

Department is not a suable entity within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and it is
DISMISSED from this action. See Matthews v. Jones, 35 F.3d 1046, 1049 (6th Cir.
1994) (a police department is not an entity which can be sued under § 1983); see also De
La Garza v. Kandiyohi County Jail, 18 F. App'x 436, 437 (8th Cir. 2001) (neither a
county jail nor a sheriff's department is a suable entity); Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210,
1214 (11th Cir. 1992) ("[s]heriff's departments and police departments are not usually
considered legal entities subject to suit").
2

Plaintiff makes generalized complaints concerning the food he was served at the
Loudon County Jail and the lack of a law library. Although he lists Correctional Officers
Ryner and Samuels as defendants, he has not made specific allegations against the
individual defendants. Therefore, plaintiff will have twenty (20) days from the date
hereof to amend his complaint to state exactly how his constitutional rights were violated
and the specific defendant or defendants who violated his constitutional rights. See
LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013) ("Under Rule 15(a) a district
court can allow a plaintiff to amend his complaint even when the complaint is subject to
dismissal under the PLRA.").
Plaintiff's failure to amend his complaint will result in the complaint being
dismissed for failure to state a claim and for failure to prosecute and to follow the orders
of this Court. Plaintiff is ORDERED to inform the Court in writing immediately of any
address changes. Failure to provide a correct address to this Court within ten (10) days
following any change of address will result in the dismissal of this action.

ENTER:
____________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3