Spurgeon v. Monroe County Sheriff's Department/Jail
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate Defendant Monroe County Sheriff's Department/Jail and substitute Monroe County as a Defendant in this matter; The Clerk is DIRECTED to add Blount County as a D efendant in this matter; The Clerk is hereby DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a service packet (a blank summons and USM 285 form) for all Defendants; Plaintiff is ORDERED to complete the service packets and return them to the Clerk's Office within thirty (30) days of entry of this memorandum and order. At that time, the summonses will be signed and sealed by the Clerk and forwarded to the U.S. Marshal for service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Signed by District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 7/2/19. (copy mailed to James Spurgeon, III along with service packets) (JBR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
JAMES L. SPURGEON III,
Plaintiff,
v.
MONROE COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT/JAIL,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.
3:17-CV-304-TAV-DCP
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is before the Court
for screening pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).
I.
SCREENING STANDARD
Under the PLRA, district courts must screen prisoner complaints and sua sponte
dismiss any claims 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) and 1915(A);
Benson v. O’Brian, 179 F.3d 1014 (6th Cir. 1999). The dismissal standard articulated by
the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and in Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 554 (2007) “governs dismissals for failure state a claim under [28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A] 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 an initial review under the PLRA, 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). Allegations that give rise to a mere possibility that a plaintiff
might later establish undisclosed facts supporting recovery are not well-pled and do not
state a plausible claim, however. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570. Further, formulaic and
conclusory recitations of the elements of a claim which are not supported by specific facts
are insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681
(2009).
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. Braley v. City of
Pontiac, 906 F.2d 220, 223 (6th Cir. 1990) (stating that “Section 1983 . . . creates a right
of action for the vindication of constitutional guarantees found elsewhere”).
II.
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff alleges that he was housed at the Monroe County Jail from October 25,
2015, until May 25, 2016 [Doc. 1 p. 1]. Thereafter, he was housed at the Blount County
Jail until June 6, 2016 [Id. p. 5]. Plaintiff maintains that the conditions at the Monroe
County Jail and Blount County Jail were unsanitary, and that he had mold in his cell [Doc.
1 p. 1]. Shortly after his release, Plaintiff became sick and had to undergo surgery for a
collapsed lung, a heart infection, and kidney failure [Id. p. 2]. Plaintiff asserts that his
2
physician advised him that his illness was caused by group A Strep, which he likely caught
while incarcerated [Id.].
III.
DISCUSSION
Construing Plaintiff’s complaint liberally and accepting his allegations as true, the
Court finds that Plaintiff may, after an opportunity to conduct discovery, be able to state a
viable claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement. However, neither sheriff’s
offices nor jails are entities subject to suit under § 1983. See Matthews v. Jones, 35 F.3d
1046, 1049 (6th Cir. 1994) (holding that a county police department was not an entity
which may be sued). Because Plaintiff’s complaint allows the Court to plausibly infer that
the Monroe and/or Blount County Jails subjected him to constitutionally inadequate living
conditions due to a custom or policy, however, the Court will liberally construe his claim
as against Monroe County and Blount County and allow this case to proceed against those
Defendants.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above:
1.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate Defendant Monroe County Sheriff’s
Department/Jail and substitute Monroe County as a Defendant in this matter;
2.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to add Blount County as a Defendant in this
matter;
3.
The Clerk is hereby DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a service packet (a blank
summons and USM 285 form) for all Defendants;
4.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to complete the service packets and return them to
the Clerk’s Office within thirty (30) days of entry of this memorandum and
3
order. At that time, the summonses will be signed and sealed by the Clerk
and forwarded to the U.S. Marshal for service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4;
5.
Plaintiff is NOTIFIED that failure to return the completed service packets
within the time required may result in dismissal of this action for want of
prosecution and/or failure to follow Court orders;
6.
Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint and within
twenty-one (21) days from the date of service. If any Defendant fails to
timely respond to the complaint, any such failure may result in entry of
judgment by default; and
7.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to immediately inform the Court and Defendants or
their counsel of record of any address changes in writing. Pursuant to Local
Rule 83.13, it is the duty of a pro se party to promptly notify the Clerk and
the other parties to the proceedings of any change in his or her address, to
monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the action
diligently. E.D. Tenn. L.R. 83.13. Failure to provide a correct address to
this Court within fourteen days of any change in address may result in the
dismissal of this action.
ENTER:
s/ Thomas A. Varlan
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?