Vaughn v. Arnold et al
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 3/19/2015. (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
JAMIE LYNN VAUGHN
Plaintiff,
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
v.
ROBERT ARNOLD, et al.
Defendants.
No. 3:15-0161
Judge Trauger
M E M O R A N D U M
The
plaintiff,
Rutherford
County
proceeding
Adult
pro
Detention
se,
is
Center
an
in
inmate
at
the
Murfreesboro,
Tennessee. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Robert Arnold, Sheriff of Rutherford County, and Lt. Deal,
a member of the staff at the Detention Center, seeking injunctive
relief.
On July 17, 2014, the plaintiff was arrested and taken to the
Rutherford County Adult Detention Center. Since then, he alleges
that the defendants have been harassing him for the misdeeds of his
nephew. More specifically, the plaintiff claims that the defendants
(1) refuse to assign him to a position of trustee at the jail; (2)
have threatened and verbally abused him; and (3) have attempted to
interfere with his ability to file the instant action.
To establish a claim for § 1983 relief, the plaintiff must
1
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, 451 U.S. 527, 535
(1981).
An inmate’s expectation of obtaining or retaining a particular
job assignment has not been recognized as a property or liberty
interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.
Dellis v. Corrections Corporation of America, 257 F.3d 508, 511 (6th
Cir.2001). Thus, defendants’ refusal to grant the plaintiff trustee
status does not state a constitutional claim.
The plaintiff also complains about being threatened and
verbally abused by the defendants. But it is well settled that mere
words, no matter how offensive, threatening, or insulting, do not
rise to the level of a constitutional violation. McFadden v. Lucas,
713 F.2d 143, 147 (5th Cir.1983). Therefore, the alleged verbal
abuse of the plaintiff is not actionable here. Paul v. Davis, 424
U.S. 693 (1976).
Finally,
the
plaintiff
asserts
that
the
defendants
have
discouraged and attempted to interfere with the filing of the
instant action.
A prisoner has a First Amendment right of access to the
courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821-823 (1977). To insure
the meaningful exercise of this right, jail officials are under an
affirmative
obligation
to
provide
2
inmates
with
access
to
an
adequate
law
library,
Walker
v.
Mintzes,
771
F.2d
920
(6th
Cir.1985), or some alternate form of legal assistance. Procunier v.
Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 419 (1974).
It is not enough, however, for the plaintiff to simply allege
that his ability to file a lawsuit has been made more difficult. He
must also show that the defendants’ conduct in some way prejudiced
the filing or prosecution of a legal matter. Walker, supra at 771
F.2d 932; Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 175 (6th Cir.1996). The
plaintiff has made no such showing. Consequently, this allegation
is also not actionable.
Because the allegations in the complaint do not rise to the
level of a constitutional deprivation, the plaintiff is unable to
prove every element of a § 1983 cause of action. The plaintiff,
therefore, has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Under such circumstances, the Court is obliged to dismiss
the instant action sua sponte. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
An appropriate order will be entered.
____________________________
Aleta A. Trauger
United States District Judge
3
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?