Moore v. Bedford County Jail

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 11 is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ASSESSED the civil filing fee of $350.00. The custodian of Plaintiffs inmate trust account is DIRECTED to submit the filing fee to the Clerk in the manner set forth. Plaintiff cannot maintain suit against Bedford County or the Bedford County Jail, and they are DISMISSED from this action. Plaintiff shall have fourteen (14) days from entry of this Order to subm it an amended complaint in accordance with the directives above. Signed by District Judge Charles E. Atchley, Jr. on 11/17/22. (c/m Rendell Jerel Moore 110213 DEKALB COUNTY JAIL 2801 JORDAN ROAD,SW FORT PAYNE, AL 35967 with 1983 form and custodian of inmate accounts) (ADA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT WINCHESTER
RENDELL JEREL MOORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
BEDFORD COUNTY, TENNESSEE, and
BEDFORD COUNTY JAIL,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:22-cv-33
Judge Atchley
Magistrate Judge Steger

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a pro se prisoner’s civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Bedford County and the Bedford County Jail [Doc. 1], and a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis in this cause [Doc. 11]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s
motion, dismiss certain claims and the named Defendants, and allow Plaintiff an opportunity to
submit an amended complaint.
I.

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
It appears from Plaintiff’s motion [Doc. 11] and supporting documents [Doc. 9] that he

lacks sufficient financial resources to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915, this motion [Doc. 11] will be GRANTED.
Plaintiff will be ASSESSED the civil filing fee of $350.00. The custodian of Plaintiff’s
inmate trust account will be DIRECTED to submit to the Clerk, U.S. District Court, 220 West
Depot Street, Suite 200, Greeneville, Tennessee 37743 twenty percent (20%) of Plaintiff’s
preceding monthly income (or income credited to Plaintiff’s trust account for the preceding
month), but only when such monthly income exceeds ten dollars ($10.00), until the full filing fee

Case 4:22-cv-00033-CEA-CHS Document 12 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 38

of three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00) as authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) has been paid to
the Clerk. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
To ensure compliance with this fee-collection procedure, the Clerk will be DIRECTED to
mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the custodian of inmate accounts at the institution
where Plaintiff is now confined. The Clerk also will be DIRECTED to furnish a copy of this
Order to the Court’s financial deputy. This Order shall be placed in Plaintiff’s prison file and
follow him if he is transferred to another correctional institution.
II.

ANALYSIS
A.

Plaintiff’s Allegations

At approximately 5:45 a.m. on June 13, 2022, Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee housed in D-pod
cell 220 at the Bedford County Jail, got into a physical altercation with his cellmate, a state inmate
named Samuel Benicio, after Benicio attempted to take Plaintiff’s breakfast tray and mattress
[Doc. 1 p. 4-5; Doc. 10 p. 1]. The cellmates fought while Correctional Officers Hanel and Wren
stood by watching and awaiting backup while Plaintiff and other inmates yelled for officers to
intervene [Doc. 1 p. 5; Doc. 10 p. 1-2]. Plaintiff “threw his hands up in surrender” as Benicio
“kept swinging” at Plaintiff [Doc. 10 p. 2]. The altercation continued another thirty (30) minutes
to ninety (90) minutes before Correctional Officers Hanel, Keys, and Wren entered the cell and
handcuffed Plaintiff [Doc. 1p. 4; Doc. 10 p. 2].
At approximately 6:45 a.m., Plaintiff was placed in a cell with a working phone to call his
family, but Sergeant Rutledge disconnected the phone [Doc. 10 p. 2]. Plaintiff heard Sergeant
Metcalf tell Officer Wren that county inmates are not supposed to be housed with State inmates
[Doc. 10 p. 2]. Plaintiff was then denied medical services for a busted lip, which resulted in
“mental anguish” and scars [Doc. 1 p. 5]. Despite these incidents, Plaintiff was placed in C-pod
with Benicio in July 2022 [Doc. 1p. 5; Doc. 10 p. 2].
2
Case 4:22-cv-00033-CEA-CHS Document 12 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 39

Aggrieved, Plaintiff filed the instant suit seeking $400,000,000 in compensation for the
mental anguish and pain and suffering caused by Defendants’ actions [Doc. 1 p. 5].
B.

Screening Standards

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“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
1915A; 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 Bell Atl. 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)” of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 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).
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. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 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”).
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. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681.
Likewise, an allegation that does not raise a plaintiff’s right to relief “above a speculative level”
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. However,

3
Case 4:22-cv-00033-CEA-CHS Document 12 Filed 11/17/22 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 40

courts liberally construe pro se pleadings filed in civil rights cases and hold them to “less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
C.

Analysis
1.

Housing with State Inmate

First, the Court addresses Plaintiff’s claim that his constitutional rights were denied
because he, a pretrial detainee, was improperly housed with a “state inmate” [See Doc. 1 p. 3].
Neither detainees nor convicted prisoners possess a constitutional right to be housed in any
particular facility or area of the facility. See Harbin-Bey v. Rutter, 420 F.3d 571, 576 (6th Cir.
2005) (holding that a prisoner does not have a constitutional right to be placed in a specific security
classification). Therefore, a plaintiff “cannot state a claim under § 1983 based generally on being
a pretrial detainee housed with state inmates.” Latham v. Oshefski, No. 1:19-CV-P131-GNS, 2019
WL 6178684, at *5 (W.D. Ky. Nov. 20, 2019). Instead, to state a claim, a plaintiff must present
some indication that Defendants knew or should have known that comingling detainees and
convicted prisoners posed some particular risk. See Collier v. Haywood Cnty., No. 14-1324-JDTEGB, 2015 WL 1758075, at *6 (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 17, 2015) (housing pretrial detainee with inmates
convicted of unspecified crimes was insufficient to establish deliberate indifference when plaintiff
did not allege any jail employee was aware that any convicted inmate presented a risk to plaintiff).
Plaintiff does not here make any allegations from which the Court could infer that Defendants
knew or should have known that convicted inmates posed a danger to him prior to the incident
giving rise to this action, and therefore, this claim will be dismissed.
2.

Disconnected Phone

Plaintiff maintains that after his altercation with Benicio, he was placed in a booking cell
to call his family, but the telephone was disconnected by Sergeant Metcalf [Doc. 10 p. 2]. It is

4
Case 4:22-cv-00033-CEA-CHS Document 12 Filed 11/17/22 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 41

unclear whether Plaintiff included this allegation for completeness or to state a claim for § 1983
relief. Therefore, the Court will address the allegation as an intended § 1983 claim.
It is well settled that “a prisoner’s right to telephone access is subject to rational limitations
in the face of legitimate security interests of the penal institution. The exact nature of telephone
service to be provided to inmates is generally to be determined by prison administrators, subject
to court scrutiny for unreasonable restrictions.” Washington v. Reno, 35 F.3d 1093, 1100 (6th Cir.
1994) (internal punctuation and citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts to
indicate that he is prohibited from communicating regularly with friends, family, and/or his
attorney, nor has he alleged any facts from which the Court could infer that disconnecting the
telephone in the booking cell where Plaintiff was housed following a violent altercation with
another inmate was an unreasonable restriction. Therefore, any such claim will be dismissed.
3.

Named Defendants

Plaintiff has listed both Bedford County and the Bedford County Jail as the parties
responsible for the constitutional violations alleged in his complaint [Doc. 1 p. 2]. However,
Plaintiff cannot sustain this action against the Bedford County Jail, as a building is not a “person”
subject to § 1983 liability. See, e.g., Cage v. Kent County Corr. Facility, No. 96-1167, 1997 WL
225647, at *1 (6th Cir. May 1, 1997) (stating that “[t]he district court also properly found that the
jail facility named as a defendant was not an entity subject to suit under § 1983”). Therefore, the
Bedford County Jail will be dismissed from this action.
Conversely, a county may be liable under § 1983 for injuries sustained as a result of an
unconstitutional policy or custom. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs, 436 U.S. 658, 708 (1978)
(Powell, J., concurring) (explaining a municipality can only be held liable for harms that result
from a constitutional violation when that underlying violation resulted from “implementation of
its official policies or established customs”). Here, however, Plaintiff does not identify any official
5
Case 4:22-cv-00033-CEA-CHS Document 12 Filed 11/17/22 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 42

policy or established custom that caused him to be assaulted or denied medical care as alleged in
his complaint, and therefore, he cannot sustain a claim against Bedford County itself.
4.

Opportunity to Amend

Despite Plaintiff’s failure to name a party that may be held liable for the wrongdoing
alleged in his complaint, the Court notes that correctional officials have a duty to protect prisoners
from violence by other prisoners, ensure that prisoners receive adequate medical care, and to take
reasonable measures to protect their safety. See, e.g., Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33
(1994). Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff may be able to state a plausible constitutional
claim if he is provided an additional opportunity to identify the specific Defendant(s) responsible
for allegedly failing to protect him and/or denying him medical treatment and support these
statements with factual enhancement. See, e.g., Frazier v. Michigan, 41 F. App’x 762, 764 (6th
Cir. 2002) (providing that “a complaint must allege that the defendants were personally involved
in the alleged deprivation of federal rights” to state a § 1983 claim).
Accordingly, the Court will allow Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint
listing as named Defendants the persons responsible for failing to protect him and/or denying him
medical care, along with the specific factual basis supporting each Defendant’s liability. Plaintiff
should not make legal arguments as to any Defendant’s liability or address any claim dismissed
by this Order, but rather, he should advise the Court of the facts — the who, what, when, where,
why, and how — surrounding his claims.
Therefore, if Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this litigation, he is ORDERED to file within
fourteen (14) days of entry of this Order a single, comprehensive complaint that sets forth the
following in concise language: the name(s) of each Defendant, the constitutional claim(s) for relief
attributable to that Defendant, the factual allegations supporting each claim, and the specific
injuries (if any) suffered by Plaintiff.
6
Case 4:22-cv-00033-CEA-CHS Document 12 Filed 11/17/22 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 43

Plaintiff is NOTIFIED that if he does not file the amended complaint by the deadline, the
Court will DISMISS his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff is NOTIFIED that this amended complaint will be the sole operative complaint
that the Court considers, and therefore, it must be complete in and of itself and must not refer to
any previously filed allegations or pleadings. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a § 1983
form for this purpose.
Plaintiff is NOTIFIED that the Court WILL NOT consider any further amendments
and/or supplements to the complaint or any other kind of motion for relief until after the Court has
screened the amended complaint pursuant to the PLRA, which the Court will do as soon as
practicable. Accordingly, the Court will automatically deny any requests to further amend or
supplement the complaint and/or motions filed before the Court has completed this screening.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, it is ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 11] is GRANTED;

2.

Plaintiff is ASSESSED the civil filing fee of $350.00;

3.

The custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate trust account is DIRECTED to submit the filing
fee to the Clerk in the manner set for above;

4.

Plaintiff cannot maintain suit against Bedford County or the Bedford County Jail,
and they are DISMISSED from this action;

5.

Plaintiff’s complaints regarding telephone access and being housed with state
inmates are DISMISSED for failure to raise constitutional issues;

6.

Plaintiff shall have fourteen (14) days from entry of this Order to submit an
amended complaint in accordance with the directives above. The Clerk is
DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a § 1983 form for this purpose;

7.

If Plaintiff fails to timely submit an amended complaint, this action will be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief may be granted; and

7
Case 4:22-cv-00033-CEA-CHS Document 12 Filed 11/17/22 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 44

8.

Plaintiff must 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 (14) days of any change in
address may result in the dismissal of this action.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Charles E. Atchley, Jr.
CHARLES E. ATCHLEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
Case 4:22-cv-00033-CEA-CHS Document 12 Filed 11/17/22 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 45