Thomason v. Martin et al
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 3/17/14. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(afs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
JASON WILLIAM THOMASON
Plaintiff,
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
v.
JORDAN MARTIN
Defendant.
No. 2:14-0022
Judge Sharp
M E M O R A N D U M
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is an inmate at the Jackson
County
Jail
in
Gainesboro,
Tennessee.
He
brings
this
action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Jordan Martin, a guard at the
Smith County Jail, seeking injunctive relief and damages.
In mid January of this year, the plaintiff was an inmate at
the Smith County Jail in Carthage, Tennessee. While there, the
defendant
allegedly
pulled
on
plaintiff’s
goatee
and
made
a
sexually suggestive remark. The plaintiff reported this to a Smith
County detective. The following night, the plaintiff was almost
given another inmate’s heart medication. Shortly thereafter, the
plaintiff was transferred to his present place of confinement.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendant’s remark constitutes
sexual harassment. In addition, the plaintiff believes that he was
almost given the wrong medication in a deliberate effort to harm
him.
This action is being brought against the defendant in his
official capacity only. Because the plaintiff in an official
capacity action seeks damages not from the individually named
defendant but from the entity for which the defendant is an agent,
Pusey v. City of Youngstown, 11 F.3d 652,657 (6th Cir.1993), “an
official capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be
treated as a suit against the entity.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S.
159,166 (1985). In essence, then, the plaintiff’s claims are
against Smith County, the municipal entity that operates the Smith
County Jail. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21,25 (1991).
A claim of governmental liability requires a showing that the
misconduct
complained
of
came
about
pursuant
to
a
policy,
statement, regulation, decision or custom promulgated by Smith
County or its agent, the Smith County Sheriff’s Department. Monell
v. New York City Department of Social Services, 98 S.Ct. 2018
(1978). In short, for Smith County to be liable under § 1983, there
must be a direct causal link between an official policy or custom
and the alleged constitutional violation. City of Canton v. Harris,
109 S.Ct. 1197 (1989). To establish the requisite causal link, the
plaintiff has to “identify the policy, connect the policy to the
county itself and show that the particular injury was incurred
because of the execution of that policy”. Garner v. Memphis Police
Department, 8 F.3d 358, 363-64 (6th Cir.1993).
The plaintiff has offered nothing to suggest that his rights
were violated pursuant to a policy or regulation of Smith County.
Consequently, the plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the
defendant acting in his official capacity.
In the absence of an actionable claim, the Court is obliged to
dismiss the complaint sua sponte. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
An appropriate order will be entered.
____________________________
Kevin H. Sharp
United States District Judge
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?