Lillard v. South Precint

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 8/27/2014. (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

CECIL C. LILLARD
Plaintiff,

]
]
]
]
]
]
]

v.
SOUTH PRECINCT, et al.
Defendants.

No. 3:14-1741
Judge Campbell

M E M O R A N D U M
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is a resident of Nashville.
He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
South Precinct of the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department and
Steve

Anderson,

Chief

of

the

Metropolitan

Nashville

Police

Department, seeking unspecified relief.
The plaintiff alleges that officers of the South Precinct have
been harassing him in retaliation for a complaint he filed against
a detective in 2006.
The plaintiff has named Chief Anderson as a defendant. The
plaintiff can not, however, sue a defendant solely because of his
status as supervisor or chief executive officer. 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 (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 factual allegations suggesting that
Chief Anderson is in any way involved in the alleged harassment of
the plaintiff. 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, the
plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Chief Anderson.
The plaintiff is also suing the South Precinct. A police
precinct, though, 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).
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