Turner v. Woodbury Police Department et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 4/9/2013. (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

JAMES L. TURNER
Plaintiff,

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

v.
WOODBURY POLICE DEPARTMENT,
et al.
Defendants.

No. 3:13-0281
Judge Campbell

M E M O R A N D U M
The

plaintiff,

Rutherford

County

proceeding
Adult

pro

se,

Detention

is

Center

an
in

inmate

at

the

Murfreesboro,

Tennessee. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against the Woodbury Police Department and Chris House, seeking
damages.
On November 8, 2012, the plaintiff was arrested for violating
a court order preventing him from having any contact with his wife.
He was taken to the Cannon County Jail in Woodbury where he
remained for thirty five (35) days. The charges against the
plaintiff were dropped for lack of evidence. He now wishes to be
compensated for each day he spent in the Cannon County Jail.
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
1

some

right

guaranteed

by

the

Constitution or laws of the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451
U.S. 527, 535 (1981).
A local 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

the

city

of

Woodbury,

the

municipality responsible for the operation of the Woodbury Police
Department. However, for the city of Woodbury 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
city or its agent, the Woodbury Police Department. Monell v.
Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 689-690 (1978). No
such allegation appears in the complaint. Therefore, the Court
finds that the plaintiff has failed to state an actionable claim
against the Woodbury Police Department.
In the style of the case, the plaintiff lists Chris House as
a

defendant.

The

plaintiff,

however,

does

not

identify

this

individual. Nor does he explain in what way this individual
violated his rights. In fact, Chris House is never mentioned by the
plaintiff in the body of the complaint. Consequently, the plaintiff
has failed to state a claim against this defendant as well.

2

In the absence of an actionable claim, the Court is obliged to
dismiss the instant action sua sponte. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
An appropriate order will be entered.

____________________________
Todd Campbell
United States District Judge

3