Stephens v. Warren County Jail et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Warren County Jail DISMISSED for failure to state a viable § 1983 claim.Clerk is DIRECTED to send the plaintiff a service packet for each remaining defendant named in this action. The plaintiff is ORDERED to complete the service packets and return them to the Clerk's Office within twenty (20) days.Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 5/24/2016. (SAC, ) Copy of Order sent to Stephens along with service packet.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at WINCHESTER

JOHNNY WADE STEPHENS,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARREN COUNTY JAIL, SHERIFF
JACKIE MATHENY, KRISTY
STARGILL, EDDIE KNOWLES,
DAVID FLORANCE, CAROL
DARBY,
Defendants.

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

No.: 4:14-cv-78-HSM-WBC

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The Court is in receipt of a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, in which plaintiff alleges that he is being subjected to unconstitutional treatment
at the Warren County jail. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), district
courts must screen prisoner complaints and must 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).
In screening complaints, the Court bears in mind the rule that pro se pleadings
filed in civil rights cases must be liberally construed and held to a less stringent standard
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
Still, the complaint must be sufficient "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face," Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), which simply means the
factual content pled by a plaintiff must permit a court "to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The Court examines the complaint in light
of those requirements.
The lead defendant, the Warren County Jail, is a building and not a suable entity
under § 1983. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 688-90 & n.55
(1978) (for purposes of a § 1983 action, a “person” includes individuals and “bodies
politic and corporate”); Marbry v. Correctional Medical Services, 2000 WL 1720959, *2
(6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2000) (“[T]he Shelby County Jail is not an entity subject to suit under §
1983.”) (citing Rhodes v. McDannel, 945 F.2d 117, 120 (6th Cir. 1991)); Cage v. Kent
County Corr. Facility, 1997 WL 225647, *1 (6th Cir. May 1, 1997) ((“The district court
also properly found that the jail facility named as a defendant was not an entity subject to
suit under § 1983.”).

Accordingly, the Warren County Jail is DISMISSED as a

defendant in this suit for plaintiff’s failure to state a viable § 1983 claim against it.

2

Plaintiff asserts, in his complaint, that he has a broken jaw for which he needs
medical treatment; that, due to the broken jaw, he needs a soft diet; that he needs his teeth
extracted; that defendants have denied him all these things; and that defendants’ refusal
to meet his needs has resulted in him suffering forty-six (46) days of severe pain (a level
8 on a pain scale of 1 to 10) in his jaw and teeth (Doc. 1, Comp. at 5).
Prison officials who are deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of
inmates violate the Eighth Amendment.

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976).

Plaintiff has stated a colorable Eighth Amendment claim under Estelle.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to send the plaintiff a service packet (a blank summons
and USM 285 form) for each remaining defendant named in this action. The plaintiff is
ORDERED to complete the service packets and return them to the Clerk's Office within
twenty (20) days of the date of receipt 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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. The plaintiff is forewarned that failure to return the completed
service packets within the time required could jeopardize his prosecution of this action.
Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint within twenty-one
(21) days from the date of service. Defendants' failure to timely respond to the complaint
may result in entry of judgment by default against defendants.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to inform the Court and the defendants or their counsel of
record, 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 may result in
the dismissal of this action.
3

ENTER:

/s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._______
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4