McGarry v. Williamson County Jail et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 6/17/13. (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

SCOTT E. McGARRY
Plaintiff,

]
]
]
v.
]
]
WILLIAMSON COUNTY JAIL, et al. ]
Defendants.
]

No. 3:13-0593
Judge Campbell

M E M O R A N D U M
The

plaintiff,

proceeding

pro

se,

is

an

inmate

at

the

Williamson County Jail in Franklin, Tennessee. He brings this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Williamson County
Jail and the Disciplinary Board at the Williamson County Jail,
seeking injunctive relief and damages.
The plaintiff complains about conditions of his confinement.
More specifically, he claims that he wrongly placed in punitive
segregation for forty two (42) days when he questioned the adequacy
of

recreational

opportunities

provided

for

the

inmates.

In

addition, he alleges that conditions are unconstitutional because
there is no law library at the Jail and because inmates are now
being charged for toilet paper.
To establish a claim for § 1983 relief, the plaintiff must
plead and prove that a person or persons, while acting under color

1

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 jail or workhouse is not a person that can be sued
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Rhodes v.McDannel, 945 F.2d 117, 120 (6th
Cir. 1991); see also Petty v. County of Franklin, Ohio, 478 F.3d
341, 347 (6th Cir. 2007)(a county sheriff’s department is also not
a “person” subject to liability

under § 1983). Nor is the

Disciplinary Board at a Jail considered to be a person subject to
liability.
Of course, giving this pro se pleading a liberal construction,
the Court could construe the complaint as an attempt to state a
claim against Williamson County, the entity responsible for the
operation of the Jail. However, for Williamson County to be liable,
the

plaintiff

would

have

to

allege

constitutional

rights

were

violated

and

prove

pursuant

to

that
a

his

“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 Court finds that the plaintiff has failed to
state

a

claim

upon

which

relief

can

be

granted.

Under

such

circumstances, the Court is obliged to dismiss the complaint sua
sponte. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

2

An appropriate order will be entered.

____________________________
Todd Campbell
United States District Judge

3