McCutchen v. Westmorland P.D. et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 5/2/16. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JAMES RICHARD McCUTCHEN
Plaintiff,
v.
WESTMORELAND, P.D., et al.
Defendants.
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
NO. 3:16-0762
JUDGE CRENSHAW
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is a pre-trial detainee at the Sumner County Jail in Gallatin,
Tennessee. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Westmoreland, Tennessee
Police Department and one of its members, Karl Haynie, seeking damages.
On September 2, 2015, Officer Haynie arrested the Plaintiff for domestic violence and
misdemeanor vandalism. The Plaintiff alleges that, due to the Defendants’ neglect, he “was
subjected to being assaulted, denied my rights to be innocent until proven guilty, criminal negligence
on both defendants and due process/discrimination.” Docket Entry No. 1 at pg. 5.
This action is being brought against Officer Haynie in his official capacity 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 Westmoreland, Tennessee, the municipal entity that employs Officer Haynie.
1
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
Westmoreland or its agent, the Westmoreland Police Department. Monell v. New York City
Department of Social Services, 98 S.Ct. 2018 (1978). In short, for Westmoreland or the
Westmoreland Police Department 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 Westmoreland or the Westmoreland Police Department. Consequently, the Plaintiff
has failed to state a claim against the Defendants acting in their official capacities.
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.
_______________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?