Bradford v. Matthew W. Mellady- Federal Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 10/29/2014. (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

DON MONTRAIL BRADFORD
Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW W. MELLADY, et al.
Defendants.

]
]
]
]
]
]
]

No. 3:14-2031
Judge Campbell

MEMORANDUM

The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is a resident of Nashville. He brings this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Matthew Mellady, an employee of the Federal Bureau of Prisons; the
Federal Correctional Institution (Glimer) in Glenville, West Virginia; Blanche Cook, an Assistant
United States Attorney in the Middle District of Tennessee; Chris Holland, Warden of the United
States Penitentiary (McCreary) in Pine Knot, Kentucky; and other members of the McCreary staff;
seeking declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief.
The plaintiff was released from federal custody on May 7, 2014. While he was incarcerated,
the plaintiff alleges
Plaintiff’s life was placed in danger, due to other inmates being
allowed to see charges on prison computer. Mistake was made
by Federal Officials in placing false information on computer,
which later was admitted to by Tennessee Attorney General. Due
to mistakes being made, was placed in Administrative Segregation
by prison officials and denied access to prison population
activities, specifically deliberate indifference and causing
character assassination by others.

1

Docket Entry No. 1 at pg.5.
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 or privilege guaranteed by the
Constitution or laws of the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981).
In this instance, the defendants are federal employees. They were not acting “under color of
state law” within the meaning of § 1983 during the plaintiff’s confinement in federal penal facilities.
Thus, plaintiff’s claims are not actionable under § 1983.
When a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, as is the case here, has failed to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, 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

2