McClain v. Fisher et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 8/10/15. (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

DAVID E. McCLAIN
Plaintiff,
v.
C/O FISHER, et al.
Defendants.

]
]
]
]
]
]
]

No. 3:15-cv-0852
Judge Trauger

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 (“MDCDF”) in Nashville. He
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against C/O Fisher,
a guard at MDCDF; Charton Dethrow, a Unit Manager at that Facility;
Michael Corlew, Warden at MDCDF; and the Corrections Corporation of
America, the corporate entity charged with the operation of MDCDF;
seeking damages.
On June 3, 2015, the plaintiff attempted to use the telephone
to call his attorney but was told that the phones had been shut
off. The phones were reactivated later that evening. The plaintiff
believes that the defendants violated his Sixth Amendment right to
counsel because the telephones were not working when he wanted to
call his attorney.
This action is being brought against the defendants in their
official capacities only. Because the plaintiff in an official

capacity action seeks damages not from the individually named
defendant but from the entity for which the defendant is an agent,
Pusey v. City of Youngstown, 11 F.3d 652,657 (6th Cir.1993), “an
official capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be
treated as a suit against the entity.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S.
159,166 (1985). In essence, then, the plaintiff’s claims are
against Davidson County, the municipal entity responsible for the
Detention Facility. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21,25 (1991).
A claim of governmental liability requires a showing that the
misconduct

complained

of

came

about

pursuant

to

a

policy,

statement, regulation, decision or custom promulgated by Davidson
County or its agent, the Corrections Corporation of America. Monell
v. New York City Department of Social Services, 98 S.Ct. 2018
(1978). In short, for Davidson County to be liable under § 1983,
there must be a direct causal link between an official policy or
custom and the alleged constitutional violation. City of Canton v.
Harris, 109 S.Ct. 1197 (1989).
To establish the requisite causal link, the plaintiff has to
“identify the policy, connect the policy to the county itself and
show that

the

particular

injury

was

incurred

because

of

the

execution of that policy”. Garner v. Memphis Police Department, 8
F.3d 358, 363-64 (6th Cir.1993).
The plaintiff has offered nothing to suggest that his rights
were violated pursuant to a policy or regulation of Davidson
County. Consequently, the plaintiff has failed to state a claim

against the defendants acting in their official capacities.
In any event, a plaintiff seeking to establish liability for
actions interfering with his access to the courts must show that
the defendants’ conduct in some way prejudiced the filing or
prosecution of a legal matter. Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 175
(6th Cir.1996). The plaintiff has made no such showing.
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.

____________________________
Aleta A. Trauger
United States District Judge