Farmer v. Parker et al

Filing 40

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Magistrate Judge Brown RECOMMENDS that the Court Grant the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss 25 and 27 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 9/17/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

KEITH LAMONT FARMER
Plaintiff,

]
]
]
]
]
]
]

v.
CPL. CHRIS PARKER, et al.
Defendants.

No. 3:12-0489
Judge Trauger/Brown

To: Honorable Aleta A. Trauger, District Judge
R E P O R T

A N D

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

By an order (Docket Entry No.3) entered May 22, 2012, the
instant

action

was

referred

to

the

undersigned

“to

enter

a

scheduling order for the management of the case, to dispose or
recommend disposition of any pretrial motions under 28 U.S.C. §§
636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and to conduct further proceedings, if
necessary, under Rule 72(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., and the Local Rules of
Court.”
Presently pending are Motions to Dismiss from the defendants,
Sheriff Daron Hall (Docket Entry No.25) and the Metropolitan
Government of Nashville and Davidson County (Docket Entry No.27).
I. Background
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is an inmate at the Morgan
County Correctional Complex in Wartburg, Tennessee. He brings this

1

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Cpl. Chris Parker, a
guard at the Davidson County Criminal Justice Center; Daron Hall,
Sheriff of Davidson County; and the Metropolitan Government of
Nashville

and

Davidson

County;

seeking

injunctive

relief

and

damages.
Prior to arriving at his present place of confinement, the
plaintiff was an inmate at the Davidson County Criminal Justice
Center. On January 22, 2012, he was in handcuffs being led from the
exercise yard back to his cell. According to the plaintiff, Cpl.
Parker asked to see his legal mail. When the plaintiff refused,
Cpl.

Parker

allegedly

used

excessive

force

on

him

without

provocation. More specifically, he claims that Cpl. Parker pushed
his face up against a wall, hit the plaintiff in the back of the
head, and sprayed him with mace. When the plaintiff slumped to the
ground,

Cpl.

Parker

then

allegedly

placed

his

knee

on

the

plaintiff’s buttocks, causing the plaintiff to lose consciousness.
When the plaintiff regained consciousness, he was unable to
see because of the mace that had been sprayed in his face. The
plaintiff was taken to the clinic and eventually returned to his
cell. He further claims that Cpl. Parker threatened to hurt his
brother who was also an inmate at the Criminal Justice Center.
Plaintiff believes that he is entitled to relief for what he
considers to be a violation of his constitutional rights.

2

II. Standard of Review
A Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure is reviewed under the standard that dismissal is
appropriate only if it appears that the complaint does not contain
either

direct

or

inferential

allegations

respecting

all

the

material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable
legal theory. Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1969
(2007). Accordingly, the complaint must contain enough factual
allegations to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937,1951 (2009). In reviewing
a Motion to Dismiss, the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint
are liberally construed and taken as true. Williams v. Curtin, 631
F.3d 380,383 (6th Cir.2011). More than bare assertions of legal
conclusions, however, are required to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6)
Motion,

and

the

complaint

must

contain

allegations

of

fact

sufficient to support the asserted legal claims. Iqbal, supra at
129 S.Ct. 1950.
III. Motion to Dismiss - Sheriff Daron Hall
To establish a claim for § 1983 relief, the plaintiff must
plead and prove that the defendants, while acting under color of
state law, deprived him of a right guaranteed by the Constitution
or laws of the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535
(1981).
The plaintiff has named Sheriff Daron Hall as a defendant to
3

this action because “he’s over the county jail”. Docket Entry No.1
at pg.3. But the plaintiff can not sue a defendant solely because
of his status as a supervisor or chief executive officer. 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 will not support a claim posed on a respondeat superior
theory of liability. Iqbal, supra at 129 S.Ct. 1948. At a minimum,
a § 1983

plaintiff must plead and be able to prove that a

supervisory official at least implicitly authorized, approved or
knowingly

acquiesced

in

the

unconstitutional

conduct

of

an

offending subordinate. Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416,421 (6th
Cir.1984).
In this case, the plaintiff has not alleged that Sheriff Hall
was in any way involved in the assault upon him. In fact, Sheriff
Hall is never mentioned in the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim. See
Docket Entry No.1 at pgs.3-5. Personal liability “must be based on
the actions of that defendant in the situation that the defendant
faced, and not based on any problems caused by the errors of
others.” Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F.2d 532, 535 (6th Cir.1991). As
a consequence, the plaintiff has failed to state a claim against
Sheriff Hall upon which § 1983 relief can be granted. Therefore,
the undersigned finds that Sheriff Hall’s Motion to Dismiss has
merit and should be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
IV. Motion to Dismiss - Metro Government
The plaintiff contends that the Metropolitan Government of
Nashville and Davidson County is also liable for the misconduct of

4

Cpl. Parker.
A governmental entity can not be held liable solely because it
employs a tortfeasor. Monell v. New York City Department of Social
Services, 436 U.S. 658,691 (1978). Thus, a municipality can only be
held responsible for a constitutional deprivation if there is 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

demonstrate

municipal

liability,

the

plaintiff must (1) identify the municipal policy or custom, (2)
connect the policy to the municipality, and (3) show that his
particular injury was incurred as a result of that policy. Alkire
v. Irving, 330 F.3d 802,815 (6th Cir.2003).
In his Statement of Claim, the plaintiff never mentions the
Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. Nor has
he offered factual allegations that would suggest that he was
assaulted and injured pursuant to some type of official policy or
custom.

Consequently,

the

plaintiff

has

failed

to

state

an

actionable claim against this defendant for § 1983 relief.
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
For the reasons discussed above, the undersigned finds that
the plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Sheriff Daron
Hall and the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson
County

for

RECOMMENDED,

which

relief

therefore,

can
that

be
the

5

granted.
Court

It

GRANT

is

respectfully

the

defendants’

Motions to Dismiss (Docket Entry Nos. 25 and 27).
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed
with the Clerk of Court within fourteen (14) days of receipt of
this notice and must state with particularity the specific portions
of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made.
Failure to file written objections within the specified time can be
deemed a waiver of the right to appeal the District Court’s Order
regarding the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th
Cir.1981).

Respectfully submitted,
______________________________
Joe B. Brown
United States Magistrate Judge

6