Watson v. Davidson County Sheriff's Department et al
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 9/26/2012. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
DONZEL WATSON
Plaintiff,
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
v.
DAVIDSON COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, et al.
Defendants.
No. 3:12-0961
Judge Trauger
M E M O R A N D U M
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is an inmate at the Davidson
County Criminal Justice Center in Nashville. He brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Davidson County Sheriff’s
Department and Correct Care Solutions, a contract provider of
medical services at the Criminal Justice Center, seeking damages.
The plaintiff injured his back in 1993. He complains that
medical
personnel
at
the
Criminal
Justice
Center
“constantly
refused to treat my pain with anything other than two days of
Tylenol, which I told them didn’t help me at all. I’ve also asked
to see a Dr. and to be given X-rays because of the constant pain
I’m in, and I’ve been refused both.” Docket Entry No.1 at pg.3.
To establish a claim for § 1983 relief, the plaintiff must
plead and prove that a person or persons, while acting under color
of
state
law,
deprived
him
of
some
right
guaranteed
by
the
Constitution or laws of the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451
U.S. 527, 535 (1981).
A county sheriff’s department is not a person that can be sued
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Petty v. County of Franklin, Ohio, 478 F.3d
341, 347 (6th Cir. 2007), see also Matthews v. Jones, 35 F.3d 1046,
1049 (6th Cir. 1994). Of course, giving this pro se pleading a
liberal construction, the Court could construe the complaint as an
attempt to state a claim against Davidson County, the municipal
entity responsible for the operation of the Criminal Justice
Center. However, for Davidson County to be liable, the plaintiff
would have to allege and prove that his constitutional rights were
violated pursuant to a “policy statement, ordinance, regulation or
decision officially adopted and promulgated” by the county. Monell
v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 689-690 (1978). No
such allegation appears in the complaint. Therefore, the plaintiff
has failed to state a claim against either Davidson County or the
Davidson County Sheriff’s Department for § 1983 relief.
The plaintiff is also bringing suit against Correct Care
Solutions, the company that provides medical services for the
Criminal Justice Center.
The plaintiff can not sue a defendant solely because of its
status as the employer of an alleged tortfeasor. 42 U.S.C. § 1983
will not support a claim posed on a respondeat superior theory of
liability. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). Where
there
is
no
allegation
of
participation,
either
directly
or
indirectly, by an employer in an allegedly wrongful act, the
complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be
granted. See Dunn v. Tennessee, 697 F.2d 121, 128 (6th Cir.1982),
cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1086 (1983).
In this instance, there have been no factual allegations
offered suggesting that the plaintiff was denied medical care
pursuant to a policy or instructions from Correct Care Solutions.
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). Consequently, the plaintiff has failed
to state a claim against this defendant as well.
When a prisoner, proceeding in forma pauperis, as is the case
here, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the
Court is obliged to dismiss the action sua sponte. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2).
An appropriate order will be entered.
____________________________
Aleta A. Trauger
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?