Baird v. Robertson County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 3/14/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(rd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

BRANDON SCOTT BAIRD
Plaintiff,

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

v.
ROBERTSON COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE, et al.
Defendants.

No. 3:13-0213
Judge Campbell

M E M O R A N D U M
The

plaintiff,

proceeding

pro

se,

is

an

inmate

at

the

Robertson County Detention Facility in Springfield, Tennessee. He
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
Robertson County Sheriff’s Office; Bill Holt, Sheriff of Robertson
County; Southern Health Partners, the health care provider for
inmates

at

the

Robertson

County

Detention

Facility;

and

Dr.

Matthews, a physician employed by Southern Health Partners; seeking
damages.
The plaintiff is challenging conditions of his confinement at
the Robertson County Detention Facility. More specifically, he
complains about inadequate medical care, the failure to follow
grievance and classification procedures, and price gouging by
Southern Health Partners and the commissary. In addition, the
plaintiff claims that he is forced to take showers where he can be
1

seen by female guards.
This action is being brought against the defendants in their
official capacities 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 Robertson County, the municipal entity that operates the
Detention Facility. 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 Robertson
County or its agent, the Robertson County Sheriff’s Department.
Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 98 S.Ct.
2018 (1978). In short, for Robertson 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).
The plaintiff has offered nothing to suggest that his rights
were violated pursuant to a policy or regulation of Robertson
County. Consequently, the plaintiff has failed to state a claim
against the defendants acting in their official capacities.

2

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.

____________________________
Todd Campbell
United States District Judge

3