Robinson v. Tennessee Department of Corrections et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 10/12/16. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(am)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION LOUIS TYRONE ROBINSON Plaintiff, v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al. Defendants. ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] No. 3:16-2296 Judge Trauger MEMORANDUM The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is an inmate at the Trousdale Turner Correctional Center in Hartsville, Tennessee. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Tennessee Department of Correction and the Jackson-Madison County General Hospital, seeking unspecified relief. In the section of the complaint captioned Cause of Action, the plaintiff has written “Stated within complaint”. In his Statement of Facts, it reads simply “Quoted within civil rights complaint that’s attached hereto.” Docket Entry No. 1 at pg. 5. Unfortunately, there is no civil rights complaint attached thereto. Instead, the plaintiff has submitted 133 additional pages which include various news articles, copies of grievances and grievance responses, disciplinary reports and medical information. Pro se pleadings are subject to liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). Nevertheless, liberal construction does not require the Court to create a claim that the plaintiff has 1 not spelled out in his complaint. Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). A plaintiff is required to plead more than bare legal conclusions. Lillard v. Shelby County Board of Education, 76 F.3d 716, 726 (6th Cir. 1996). Thus, a pro se litigant must meet the basic pleading requirements for a complaint in order to state a cognizable claim for relief. Wells, supra. Plaintiff must identify the right or privilege that was violated and the role that each defendant played in the alleged violation. Dunn v. Tennessee, 697 F.2d 121, 128 (6th Cir. 1982). In this case, the plaintiff has neglected to identify the right or privilege that was violated and the role that each defendant played in the alleged violation. The defendants are never mentioned in plaintiff’s Cause of Action or Statement of Facts and there is no indication as to which conditions of his confinement he may be challenging by this lawsuit. Consequently, the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Under such circumstances, the Court is obliged to sua sponte dismiss the instant action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). An appropriate order will be entered. ______________________________ Aleta A. Trauger 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?