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)

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