Rouse v. State of Tennessee et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 6/21/13. (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

CARL E. ROUSE, JR.
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al.
Defendants.

]
]
]
]
]
]
]

No.
(No.3:13-mc-0043)
Judge Sharp

M E M O R A N D U M
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is an inmate at the Metro
Davidson County Detention Facility in Nashville. He brings this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of Tennessee;
the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole; its Chairman, Charles
Traughber; Burton Mixer, a state Probation Officer; Mark Fishburn,
a Criminal Court Judge in Davidson County; and Joel Crim, a
Davidson County prosecutor; seeking damages.
According to the complaint, Officer Mixer cited the plaintiff
for a probation violation. A warrant was issued for the plaintiff’s
arrest. He was taken into custody and remained there for sixteen
(16) days (5/29/12 - 6/14/12). The plaintiff alleges that the
defendants falsely imprisoned him.
To establish a claim for § 1983 relief, the plaintiff must
plead and prove that the defendants, while acting under color of
state law, deprived him of a right guaranteed by the Constitution

or laws of the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 101 S.Ct. 1908
(1981).
An arrest pursuant to a facially valid warrant is normally a
complete defense to a federal constitutional claim for false arrest
or false imprisonment made pursuant to § 1983. Voyticky v. Village
of Timberlake, 412 F.3d 669,677 (6th Cir.2005).
In this instance, the plaintiff acknowledges that he was taken
into custody pursuant to a warrant. He does not, however, offer any
factual allegations that would lead one to question the validity of
the warrant. As a consequence, the plaintiff has failed to state an
actionable claim for false imprisonment.
When a prisoner plaintiff has failed to state an actionable
claim, the Court is obliged to dismiss his complaint sua sponte. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Accordingly, an appropriate order will be
entered dismissing this action.

____________________________
Kevin H. Sharp
United States District Judge