Hatcher v. Tennessee Department of Corrections
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION as set forth in following order. Signed by District Judge Pamela L Reeves on 6/2/17. (c/m)(ABF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF
This is a pro se prisoner’s complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court previously granted
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, separated the complaints filed as one
document in this case into three separate actions, and held that this action would proceed only as
Plaintiff is well-known to this District as a prolific filer of § 1983 lawsuits. While
incarcerated, Plaintiff filed approximately twenty-five lawsuits in this District, almost all of which
have been dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or under the three strikes provision of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). At one point, due to the number of motions and lawsuits filed by Plaintiff and the
abusive nature thereof, District Judge J. Ronnie Greer instructed the Clerk not to file motions or
cases sent by Plaintiff, but rather to return them to Plaintiff. See, e.g., Hatcher v. Sullivan County,
et. al, Civil Case No. 2:14-CV-35, Docket No. 1 p. 1 (E.D. Tenn., order filed Feb. 11, 2015).
It appears, however, that Plaintiff’s release from the prison system has not dampened his
enthusiasm for filing lawsuits in this District based on his prison experiences, as he has resumed
filing such complaints upon his release.
Plaintiff is hereby NOTIFIED, however, that, should he continue filing time-barred,
frivolous, and/or otherwise abusive motions or lawsuits, the Court may exercise its discretion to
impose monetary sanctions and/or bar Plaintiff from filing lawsuits absent a showing that the
proposed lawsuit is not frivolous or vexatious. Ortman v. Thomas, 99 F.3d 807, 811 (6th Cir.
1996) (affirming district court’s imposition of monetary sanctions on a plaintiff who had filed
repetitive frivolous and vexatious lawsuits and finding that it is permissible for a district court to
require a plaintiff who has abused the legal process to make a showing that a tendered lawsuit is
not frivolous or vexatious before permitting it to be filed); In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184
(1989) (holding that “every paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or
frivolous, requires some portion of the institution’s limited resources. A part of the Court’s
responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of
justice. The continual processing of petitioner’s frivolous [lawsuits] does not promote that end”).
to the first complaint therein, specifically the first three pages of the complaint filed by Plaintiff
[Doc. 4]. For the reasons set forth below, however, no process shall issue and this action will be
DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983.
District courts shall, at any time, sua sponte dismiss any claims filed in forma pauperis that
are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or are against a defendant who is immune.
See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) The dismissal standard articulated by the Supreme Court in
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554 (2007)
“governs dismissals for failure state a claim under [28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B] because the
relevant statutory language tracks the language in Rule 12(b)(6).” Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468,
470–71 (6th Cir. 2010). Thus, to survive a review under this rule, a complaint “must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Courts liberally construe pro se
pleadings filed in civil rights cases and hold them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must establish that he was
deprived of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law. Black v. Barberton Citizens
Hosp., 134 F.3d 1265, 1267 (6th Cir. 1998); see also Braley v. City of Pontiac, 906 F.2d 220, 223
(6th Cir. 1990) (stating that “Section 1983 does not itself create any constitutional rights; it creates
a right of action for the vindication of constitutional guarantees found elsewhere”).
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff’s complaint seeks monetary and declaratory relief and a class action injunction
based upon allegations that, prior to his transfer from Sullivan County Jail to Bledsoe County
Correctional Complex (“BCCX”) on December 14, 2015, Sheriff’s deputies unreasonably
assaulted him twice [Doc. 1 p. 1–3]. Plaintiff states that when he arrived at BCCX, he reported
these assaults to prison officials and that he also reported the assaults to mental health staff on or
about December 22, 2015 [Id. at 2]. Plaintiff complains, however, that Defendant Tennessee
Department of Correction (“TDOC”) did not permit Plaintiff to file criminal charges despite
Plaintiff filing multiple grievances, making verbal complaints, and sending a letter to the
Defendant TDOC’s main building in Nashville [Id. at 2]. Thus, Plaintiff states that he “fears” that
Defendant TDOC has a policy of ignoring complaints from incoming prisoners who have been
assaulted and/or sexually assaulted [Id. at 2].
First, Plaintiff alleges that he was assaulted and transferred in December 2015, that he
reported that assault to TDOC officials and others immediately or soon after his transfer, and that
he continued to protest his inability to file criminal charges. Plaintiff’s complaint, however, was
not filed until April 14, 2017. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred. Zundel v. Holder, 687 F.3d
271, 281 (6th Cir. 2012) (holding that, in Tennessee, a one-year statute of limitations is applicable
to § 1983 actions); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-104(a)(3).
Even if Plaintiff had timely claims arising out of the alleged incidents underlying his
complaint, however, Plaintiff alleges only that Defendant TDOC denied Plaintiff the opportunity
to file criminal charges against the individuals who assaulted him and Plaintiff “lacks a judicially
cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410
U.S. 614, 619 (1973). Further, Plaintiff has only sued Defendant TDOC, and the Eleventh
Amendment provides the State of Tennessee with immunity from § 1983 claims. Rodgers v. Mich.
Dep’t of Corrections, 29 Fed. App’x 259, 260 (6th Cir. 2002). This immunity extends to state
governmental agencies, as they are “arms” of the state. Dubuc v. Mich. Bd. Of Law Examiners,
342 F.3d 610, 615 (6th Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
under § 1983 and this action will be DISMISSED.
For the reasons set forth above, even liberally construing the complaint in favor of Plaintiff,
it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983 and this action will therefore
be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915(A).
The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith
and would be totally frivolous. See Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
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?