Baggett v. Fuson et al
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 6/13/2018. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
BILLY BAGGETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHERIFF JOHN FUSON, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 3:18-cv-00517
JUDGE CAMPBELL
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
FRENSLEY
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Billy Baggett, an inmate of the Montgomery County Jail in Clarksville, Tennessee,
filed this pro se, in forma pauperis action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sheriff John Fuson,
Captain M. Pierce, Corporal f/n/u Hannifield, and Deputy M. Thompson, alleging violations of
Plaintiff’s civil and constitutional rights. (Doc. No. 1).
The complaint is before the Court for an initial review pursuant to the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
I.
PLRA Screening Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss any portion of a civil complaint
filed in forma pauperis that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, is frivolous, or
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Section 1915A similarly
requires initial review of any “complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity,” id. § 1915A(a), and
summary dismissal of the complaint on the same grounds as those articulated in § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Id. § 1915A(b).
1
The court must construe a pro se complaint liberally, United States v. Smotherman, 838
F.3d 736, 739 (6th Cir. 2016)(citing Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)), and accept the
plaintiff’s factual allegations as true unless they are entirely without credibility. See Thomas v.
Eby, 481 F.3d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 2007)(citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992)).
Although pro se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted
by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110
(6th Cir. 1991), the courts’ “duty to be ‘less stringent’ with pro se complaints does not require us
to conjure up [unpleaded] allegations.” McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979) (citation
omitted).
II.
Section 1983 Standard
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates a cause of action against any person who, acting under color
of state law, abridges “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws . . .
.” To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege and show two elements: (1) he
was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) the
deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of state law. Dominguez v. Corr. Med.
Servs., 555 F.3d 543, 549 (6th Cir. 2009)(quoting Sigley v. City of Panama Heights, 437 F.3d 527,
533 (6th Cir. 2006)); 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
III.
Alleged Facts
The complaint alleges that, while incarcerated at the Montgomery County Jail on April 19,
2018, Plaintiff “got in an argument” with another inmate during rec time. (Doc. No. 1 at 6).
Deputy Thompson was in the guard tower at the time, and he did not intervene or send a floor
deputy to intervene. (Id.) Instead, Thompson sent a deputy to lock Plaintiff down for 72 hours
2
pursuant to a write-up. (Id.) Plaintiff was not given a copy of the write-up and was not allowed
to read it. (Id.) Plaintiff asked to speak with Sergeant Welch or Corporal Riley, but neither would
see Plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff filed a grievance in an effort to get a hearing, but he has not been
permitted to have a hearing. (Id. at 7). His placement in lock-down for 72 hours caused Plaintiff
to lose his job and work credits for 30 days. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, “this made [him] have
to serve an[] extra 30 days on [his] sentence . . . without no [sic] hearing at all.” (Id.)
On May 19, 2018, Plaintiff was told that a job board had met and extended his punishment
by six additional months. (Id.) On May 21, 2018, Plaintiff received a form signed by Captain
Hannifield stating that “they” voted to extend Plaintiff’s punishment by another six months. (Id.)
Plaintiff sent a request to Hannifield for a copy of the panel’s vote and was told that he needed a
subpoena. (Id.) Plaintiff believes that these actions violate his Federal due process rights. (Id.)
IV.
Analysis
Plaintiff sues four Defendants in their official capacities only. (Doc. No. 1 at 2-3). These
Defendants are John Fuson, Sheriff of Montgomery County; M. Pierce, Captain at the
Montgomery County Jail; f/n/u Hannifield, Corporal at the Montgomery County Jail; and M.
Thompson, Deputy at the Montgomery County Jail. (Id.)
When a defendant is sued in his or her official capacity as an employee of the government,
the lawsuit is directed against “the entity for which the officer is an agent.” Pusey v. City of
Youngstown, 11 F.3d 652, 657 (6th Cir. 1993). Here, Defendants are employees of Montgomery
County, Tennessee. A claim of governmental liability requires a showing that the alleged
misconduct is the result of a policy, statement, regulation, decision or custom promulgated by
Montgomery County or its agent. Monell Dep’t of Social Svcs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-691 (1978).
3
In short, for Montgomery County to be liable to Plaintiff under Section 1983, there must be a direct
causal link between an official policy or custom and the alleged violation of Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights. City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989); Burgess v. Fisher, 735
F.3d 462, 478 (6th Cir.2013) (citing Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 693, 98 S. Ct.
2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978)); Regets v. City of Plymouth, 568 Fed. Appx. 380, 2014 WL 2596562,
at *12 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Slusher v. Carson, 540 F.3d 449, 456-57 (6th Cir. 2008)). A
plaintiff can make a showing of an illegal policy or custom by demonstrating one of the following:
(1) the existence of an illegal official policy or legislative enactment; (2) that an official with final
decision making authority ratified illegal actions; (3) the existence of a policy of inadequate
training or supervision; or (4) the existence of a custom or tolerance or acquiescence of federal
rights violations. Burgess, 735 F.3d at 478.
Here, the allegations of the complaint are insufficient to state a claim for municipal liability
against Montgomery County under Section 1983. The complaint does not identify or describe any
of Montgomery County’s policies, procedures, practices, or customs relating to the incidents at
issue; the complaint does not identify any particular shortcomings in training or supervision or
how those shortcomings caused the alleged violations of Plaintiff’s rights; and it does not identify
any other previous instances of similar violations that would have put Montgomery County on
notice of a problem. See Okolo v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville, 892 F. Supp.2d 931, 944 (M.D. Tenn.
2012); Hutchison v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville, 685 F. Supp.2d 747, 751 (M.D. Tenn. 2010);
Johnson v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville, No. 3:10-cv-0589, 2010 WL 3619790, at **2-3 (M.D. Tenn.
Sept. 13, 2010). Accordingly, the Court finds that the complaint does not contain sufficient
4
allegations to state a claim for municipal liability against Montgomery County. Plaintiff’s claims
against all four Defendants in their official capacities therefore must be dismissed.
V.
Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, the Court finds that the complaint fails to state claims
upon which relief can be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all of the named Defendants. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Therefore, this action will be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
An appropriate Order will be entered.
____________________________________
WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?