McIntyre v. Grinstead et al (REM)
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Defendants Steven Graves and Captain Freeman are DISMISSED as Defendants in this action. Defendants Grinstead, Michael Sharpe, Deputy Freeman, Strange, J. Kirk, and Collins, in their official capaciti es, are DISMISSED as Defendants in this action. Plaintiff is ORDERED to complete the service packets and return them to the Clerk's Office within twenty days of entry of this order. At that time, the summonses will be signed and sealed by th e Clerk and forwarded to the U.S. Marshal for service. Signed by District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 6/17/19. (copy mailed to Kenneth Leon McIntyre, #130359 along with service packets for Defendants at 239 Jefferson Pike, Lot 35, Smyrna, TN 37167) (JBR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
KENNETH LEON McINTYRE,
Plaintiff,
v.
F/N/U GRINSTEAD,
MICHAEL SHARPE,
F/N/U FREEMAN deputy,
F/N/U STRANGE,
J. KIRK,
F/N/U FREEMAN, captain,
STEVEN GRAVES, and
F/N/U COLLINS,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.:
4:17-CV-63-TAV-SKL
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Court is in receipt of a pro se prisoner complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [Doc.
1]. Before transferring the case to this Court, the United States Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 2].
The matter is now before the Court for screening of the complaint pursuant to the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). For the reasons set forth below, this action will proceed
as to Plaintiff’s excessive force claims against the officers and deputies at the Coffee
County Jail in their individual capacities. Sheriff Steven Graves and Captain Freeman,
however, will be dismissed, along with all Defendant officers and deputies in their official
capacities.
I.
SCREENING THE COMPLAINT
Under the PLRA, district courts must screen prisoner complaints and shall, at any
time, dismiss sua sponte 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 United States Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009),
and in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (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).
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. 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”).
2
II.
BACKGROUND
On October 15, 2016, five deputies with the Coffee County Sheriff’s Department
“attacked” Plaintiff at the Coffee County Jail [Doc. 1 p. 8]. After the attack, Plaintiff was
placed in handcuffs [Id.]. Plaintiff claims that he was attacked without provocation [Id.].
As a result of the attack, Plaintiff suffered a black eye, broken nose, and injuries to
his head and toe [Id.]. Plaintiff alleges that the handcuffs were very tight [Id. at 9]. He
further claims that he was denied lunch and medical care for his injuries [Id. at 10].
III.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has named as defendants Steve Graves, Sheriff of Coffee County, Captain
Freeman, and six deputies. However, Defendants Sheriff Graves and Captain Freeman do
not appear in the body of the complaint and the Court finds no specific allegations against
them whatsoever.
Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants Sheriff Graves and Captain Freeman were
responsible for, or even knew of, the alleged wrongdoings. It is a basic pleading essential
that a plaintiff attribute factual allegations to particular defendants. Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555 (holding that in order to state a claim, the plaintiff must make sufficient allegations to
give a defendant fair notice of the claim). The Sixth Circuit has found that, “[w]here a
person is named as a defendant without an allegation of specific conduct, the complaint
against him is subject to dismissal, even under the liberal construction afforded to pro se
complaints.” See Gilmore v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 92 Fed. App’x 188, 190 (6th Cir. 2004)
3
(dismissing complaint where plaintiff failed to allege how any named defendant was
involved in the violation of his rights).
To the extent that Plaintiff has not specifically named Defendants Sheriff Graves
and Captain Freeman as Defendants because he seeks to hold them liable based on their
role in administration at Coffee County Jail, a theory of supervisory liability is
unacceptable in a § 1983 case. See Ashcroft v. Iqual, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (“[O]ur
precedents establish . . . that Government officials may not be held liable for the
unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior.”);
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978) (finding that
liability under § 1983 may not be imposed simply because a defendant “employs a
tortfeasor”). The law is settled that § 1983 liability must be based on more than respondeat
superior, or a defendant’s right to control employees. Taylor v. Mich. Dept. of Corr., 69
F.3d 76, 80-81 (6th Cir. 1995).
At a minimum, “a plaintiff must plead that each
Government official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated
the Constitution” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77. Without any detail of specific actions or
inactions of Defendants Sheriff Graves and Captain Freeman, this Court finds Plaintiff has
failed to state a constitutional claim upon which relief may be granted as against these
Defendants, and thus, Defendants Sheriff Graves and Captain Freeman will be
DISMISSED.
Further, any claims against Defendants Grinstead, Michael Sharpe, Deputy
Freeman, Strange, J. Kirk, and Collins, the officers and deputies at the Coffee County Jail,
4
in their official capacities is, essentially, a suit against Coffee County itself. See, Leach v.
Shelby Cty. Sheriff, 891 F.2d 1241, 1989 WL 153076 (6th Cir. 1989). Coffee County is a
“person” within the meaning of section 1983 and can be sued directly if it causes a
constitutional violation through “a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision
officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers.” Monell, 436 U.S. at 690.
Plaintiff must show that his alleged injury was caused by an unconstitutional policy or
custom of the municipality. See, Stemler v. City of Florence, 126 F.3d 856, 865 (6th Cir.
1997), citing Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 480‒81 (1986). Here, Plaintiff
failed to assert that any of the allegations asserted within his complaint were a result of an
unconstitutional custom or policy of Coffee County. Thus, Plaintiff failed to state a claim
against Defendants Grinstead, Michael Sharpe, Deputy Freeman, Strange, J. Kirk, and
Collins, in their official capacities, or against Coffee County. These Defendants, in their
official capacities will be DISMISSED.
Plaintiff’s allegation of excessive force, however, against Defendants Grinstead,
Michael Sharpe, Deputy Freeman, Strange, J. Kirk, and Collins, in their individual
capacities, allow the Court to infer, at this early stage of litigation, that a constitutional
violation may have occurred. Thus, the claim of excessive force against these officers and
deputies in their individual capacities may proceed.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above:
1.
Defendants Steven Graves and Captain Freeman are DISMISSED as
Defendants in this action;
5
2.
Defendants Grinstead, Michael Sharpe, Deputy Freeman, Strange, J. Kirk,
and Collins, in their official capacities, are DISMISSED as Defendants in
this action;
3.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff service packets (a blank summons
and USM 285 form) for Defendants Grinstead, Michael Sharpe, Deputy
Freeman, Strange, J. Kirk, and Collins, in their individual capacities;
4.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to complete the service packets and return them to
the Clerk’s Office within twenty days of entry of this order;
5.
At that time, the summonses will be signed and sealed by the Clerk and
forwarded to the U.S. Marshal for service, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4;
6.
Service on Defendants Grinstead, Michael Sharpe, Deputy Freeman,
Strange, J. Kirk, and Collins, in their individual capacities, shall be made
pursuant to Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule
4.04(1) and (10) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, either by mail or
personally if mail service is not effective;
7.
Plaintiff is NOTIFIED that if he fails to timely return the completed service
packets, this action may be dismissed;
8.
Defendants Grinstead, Michael Sharpe, Deputy Freeman, Strange, J. Kirk,
and Collins shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint within
twenty-one days from the date of service. If either of these Defendants fail
to timely respond to the complaint, it may result in entry of judgment by
default for that Defendant; and
9.
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Thomas A. Varlan
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?