Callis v. Miller et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 10/22/12. (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
NASHVILLE DIVISION

GEORGE JOHN CALLIS
Plaintiff,

]
]
]
]
]
]
]

v.
JAMES MILLER, et al.
Defendants.

No. 3:12-1052
Judge Trauger

M E M O R A N D U M
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is an inmate at the Charles
Bass Correctional Complex in Nashville. He brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against James Miller, Warden of the
facility;

Derrick

Schofield,

Commissioner

of

the

Tennessee

Department of Correction; and Jerry Lester, Warden of the Turney
Center

Industrial

Prison;

seeking

declaratory

and

injunctive

relief.
The plaintiff declares that he is a Christian and complains
that he has not been allowed to fully express and observe his
religious beliefs.
The plaintiff can not sue the defendants solely because of
their status as supervisors or chief executive officers. 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, 102
S.Ct. 455, 70 L.Ed.2d 509, 521 (1981). Where there is no allegation

of participation, either directly or indirectly, by a supervisor 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 case, there are no allegations from which one could
infer that the defendants have been involved, either directly or
indirectly, in any effort to infringe upon the plaintiff’s right to
practice his religious beliefs. 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, this action is subject to dismissal because the
plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the defendants upon
which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
An appropriate order will be entered.

_____________________________
Aleta A. Trauger
United States District Judge