Adkins v. Carter et al
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION: For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is REVOKED, and this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and (g). The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal fr om this action would not be taken in good faith and would be frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24. SO ORDERED. AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT WILL ENTER. Signed by District Judge Curtis L Collier on 7/23/2019. (BJL)*Mailed to Jimmy Adkins.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT WINCHESTER
JIMMY ADKINS,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
EDDIE CARTER and
JARRED CAMPBELL,
Defendants.
No.:
4:17-CV-84-CLC-SKL
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This pro se civil rights action for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was transferred to this
Court from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Doc. 4). This
matter 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 shall, at any time,
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 1915A. The
dismissal standard the Supreme Court set forth 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).
II.
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff initially filed a complaint alleging that his life was in danger, and that he was
subjected to inhumane conditions of confinement at the Van Buren County Jail (Doc. 1). Although
Plaintiff had previously received three “strikes” for filing actions that failed to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, the Western District of Tennessee nonetheless allowed him to proceed
as a pauper in the instant action based on his allegation that Defendants disclosed his status as a
confidential informant and thereby endangered his life (Doc. 4 n.1). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
(providing inmate may not proceed in forma pauperis in a civil action if he has had three or more
cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury).
Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint, alleging that between December 6,
2017, and December 18, 2017, when he was transferred to another facility, guards at the Van Buren
County Jail opened some of his legal mail and showed it to other inmates, causing “all of the
inmates [to] want[] to kill” Plaintiff; he was placed in a holding cell with no running water; he
only had one shower; he had no access to religious practices; he had no exercise; he had no access
to healthcare; he was exposed to black mold; and he was informed there was rust in the water pipes
(Doc. 6 p.2).
III.
ANALYSIS
“[T]he Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons.” Rhodes v. Chapman 452 U.S.
337, 349 (1981). Only “extreme deprivations” that deny a prisoner “‘the minimal civilized
2
measure of life’s necessities” will establish a conditions of confinement claim. Hudson v.
McMillan, 503 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1992) (citations and quotations omitted). Prison authorities may not,
however, “ignore a condition of confinement that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness and
needless suffering the next week or month or year.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993).
In examining such claims, the court must determine whether the risk of which the plaintiff
complains is “so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone
unwillingly to such a risk. In other words, the prisoner must show that the risk of which he
complains is not one that today’s society chooses to tolerate.” Id. at 36 (1993); see also Rhodes,
452 U.S. at 347.
Plaintiff’s complaint sets forth no facts that would allow the Court to infer that any of the
conditions to which he was exposed for approximately twelve days actually caused him harm, or
that his relatively short detention in such conditions is the type of grave risk society is unwilling
to tolerate. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991); Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 345-48.
Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable § 1983 claim regarding conditions at the Van
Buren County Jail.
Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff alleges only that officers at the Van Buren
County Jail disclosed his status as an informant, and that inmates wanted to kill him afterwards
(Doc. 6. p.2). Plaintiff has not pled any facts to support his conclusion that all of the inmates at
the jail wanted to kill him, and his conclusory allegation that his life was in danger is insufficient
to sustain his claim. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Additionally, by his own admissions, Plaintiff
was housed at the Van Buren County Jail for less than two weeks, and guards placed him in a
holding cell after his status as an informant was disclosed (Doc. 6 p. 2-3). He has long since been
moved to another facility. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts suggesting he faces a serious
3
risk of injury, much less allege that any risk is imminent. See Vandiver v. Prison Health Services,
Inc., 727 F.3d 580, 585 (6th Cir. 2013).
The Court finds that Plaintiff has previously filed at least three civil actions in federal courts
that were dismissed for failure to state a claim. See Adkins v. Burnette, No. 1:16-CV-42 (E.D.
Tenn. Oct. 31, 2016) (dismissed for failure to state a claim); Adkins v. Inman Stories Insurance,
No. 2:16-CV-90 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 7, 2016) (dismissed for failure to state a claim); and Adkins v.
Inman Stories Insurance, No. 2:16-CV-106 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 2, 2016) (dismissed for failure to
state a claim). Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has abused his in forma pauperis
privileges. Because Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege that he is in imminent danger of serious
physical injury, his in forma pauperis status will be revoked. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is REVOKED, and
this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and (g).
The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith
and would be frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24.
SO ORDERED.
AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT WILL ENTER.
ENTER:
/s/____________________________
CURTIS L. COLLIER
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?