Clifton v. Schofield et al
Filing
52
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 3/19/15. (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
TERRY LEE CLIFTON, et al.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
v.
DERRICK SCHOFIELD, et al.,
Defendants.
No. 3:14-cv-02026
Judge Trauger
MEMORANDUM
Terry Lee Clifton,1 an inmate at the Northeast Correctional Complex in Mountain City,
Tennessee, brings this pro se, in forma pauperis action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Derrick
Schofield, Jason Woodall, Tony Parker, Governor Bill Haslam, Benny Townsend, and Gerald
McAllister, alleging various civil rights violations. (Docket No. 1).
The plaintiff’s complaint is before the court for an initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a).
I.
PLRA Screening Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss any portion of a civil complaint
filed in forma pauperis that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, is frivolous, or
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Section 1915A similarly
requires initial review of any “complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity,” id. § 1915A(a), and summary
dismissal of the complaint on the same grounds as those articulated in § 1915(e)(2)(B). Id. §
1
Purportedly, 37 inmates initiated this action. (Docket No. 3). However, Clifton now appears to be the sole
plaintiff.
1
1915A(b).
The Sixth Circuit has confirmed that the dismissal standard articulated by the Supreme Court
in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007),
“governs dismissals for failure to state a claim under those statutes because the relevant statutory
language tracks the language in Rule 12(b)(6).” Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470–71 (6th Cir.
2010). Thus, to survive scrutiny on initial review, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[A] district court must (1) view the
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and (2) take all well-pleaded factual allegations
as true.” Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing
Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted)).
Although pro se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108,
110 (6th Cir. 1991), the courts’ “duty to be ‘less stringent’ with pro se complaints does not require
us to conjure up [unpleaded] allegations.” McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979)
(citation omitted).
II.
Section 1983 Standard
Plaintiff Clifton seeks relief pursuant to § 1983. To state a claim under § 1983, the plaintiff
must allege and show: (1) that he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States; and (2) that the deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of state law.
2
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981)(overruled in part by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327,
330 (1986)); Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155-56 (1978); Black v. Barberton Citizens
Hosp., 134 F.3d 1265, 1267 (6th Cir. 1998). Both parts of this two-part test must be satisfied to
support a claim under § 1983. See Christy v. Randlett, 932 F.2d 502, 504 (6th Cir. 1991).
III.
Analysis
The plaintiff sues each of the defendants in his official capacity (Docket No. 1 at pp. 4-8),
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief (Id. at pp. 22-23), as well as compensatory, punitive, and
general damages from the defendants (Id. at p. 30). However, the Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983
suits against state officials sued for damages in their official capacities. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64, 71 (1989); Cady v. Arenac Cnty., 574 F.3d 334, 342 (6th Cir. 2009) (“[A]n
official capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity.”)
(citation omitted). Thus, the plaintiff’s claims for damages against all of the defendants in their
official capacities must be dismissed.
Notwithstanding the court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims for money damages, the court
has reviewed the complaint pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act and finds that the plaintiff
has stated colorable conditions of confinement/Eighth Amendment claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against the defendants for injunctive and declaratory relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Among the
plaintiff’s claims,2 he alleges that defendants Schofield, Woodall, Parker, Haslam, and McAllister
each have played a role in violating the requirements of Grubbs v. Bradley; in creating or worsening
design and overcrowding issues at Tennessee’s prisons; and in devising and implementing the Tier
Management system that has caused a disintegration of security and safety within the state prison
2
This list is not comprehensive as the plaintiff sets forth his allegations in more detail in his complaint. (Docket
No. 1).
3
system. The plaintiff further alleges that the policies devised by, and practices implemented by,
Food Service Manager defendant Townsend are constitutionally defective in that inmates do not
receive adequate calories by way of their institutional meals and the food department fails to meet
minimum cleanliness guidelines. (Docket No. 1). Based on the plaintiff's allegations, the court will
allow these claims to proceed for further development.
IV.
Conclusion
As explained above, the plaintiff’s § 1983 claims for money damages against all defendants
in their official capacities must be dismissed. However, the plaintiff’s remaining § 1983 claims for
declaratory and injunctive relief will be permitted to proceed.
An appropriate order will be entered.
Aleta A. Trauger
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?