Williams v. Oldham et al

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge James D. Todd on 7/28/16. (Todd, James)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
_____________________________________________________________________________
MICHAEL JEROD WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BILL OLDHAM, et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:15-cv-2612-JDT-tmp

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

On September 15, 2015, Plaintiff Michael Jerod Williams (“Williams”), who is confined
as an inmate of Shelby County Criminal Justice Center (“Jail”), in Memphis Tennessee, filed a
pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 accompanied by a motion asking leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2). On September 17, 2015, this Court ordered Williams to
comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a) or pay the $400 civil filing fee. (ECF No. 4.) After Williams
submitted the proper motion (ECF No. 5), in an order issued October 1, 2015, the Court granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assessed the civil filing fee pursuant to the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)-(b). (ECF No. 6.) The Clerk shall
record the defendants as Shelby County Sheriff Bill Oldham, Chief of Security Robert Moore,
and D. Benn.
I. THE COMPLAINT
Williams alleges that he is being denied access to his legal counselor and the law library,
that he is being denied recreation, fresh air, and exercise, that his meals are ice cold and the same

thing every day, that he is constantly locked in his cell, that he is denied cold water to drink and
hot water to wash his face and brush his teeth, that he is being forced to eat food in his cell where
his toilet is housed, and he has been treated with cruel and unusual punishment since being there.
(Compl. at 2, ECF No. 1)
Williams seeks to have the issues addressed and have the Jail correct all of their wrongs.
(Id. at 3.)
II. ANALYSIS
A.

Screening and Standard
The Court is required to screen prisoner complaints and to dismiss any complaint, or any

portion thereof, if the complaint—
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
In assessing whether the complaint in this case states a claim on which relief may be
granted, the standards under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), as stated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
677-79 (2009), and in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007), are applied.
Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). “Accepting all well-pleaded allegations in
the complaint as true, the Court ‘consider[s] the factual allegations in [the] complaint to
determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.’” Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380,
383 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681) (alteration in original). “[P]leadings that . . .
are no more than conclusions . . . are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal
conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual
allegations.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 n.3 (“Rule 8(a)(2) still

2

requires a ‘showing,’ rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief. Without some
factual allegation in the complaint, it is hard to see how a claimant could satisfy the requirement
of providing not only ‘fair notice’ of the nature of the claim, but also ‘grounds’ on which the
claim rests.”).
“A complaint can be frivolous either factually or legally. Any complaint that is legally
frivolous would ipso facto fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Hill, 630 F.3d
at 470 (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 328-29 (1989)).
Whether a complaint is factually frivolous under §§ 1915A(b)(1) and
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) is a separate issue from whether it fails to state a claim for
relief. Statutes allowing a complaint to be dismissed as frivolous give “judges
not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless
legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s
factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are
clearly baseless.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327, 109 S. Ct. 1827 (interpreting 28
U.S.C. § 1915). Unlike a dismissal for failure to state a claim, where a judge
must accept all factual allegations as true, Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50, a judge
does not have to accept “fantastic or delusional” factual allegations as true in
prisoner complaints that are reviewed for frivolousness. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at
327-28, 109 S. Ct. 1827.
Id. at 471.
“Pro se complaints are to be held ‘to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers,’ and should therefore be liberally construed.” Williams, 631 F.3d at 383
(quoting Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004)). Pro se litigants and prisoners
are not exempt from the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As the Sixth
Circuit has explained:
Before the recent onslaught of pro se prisoner suits, the Supreme Court
suggested that pro se complaints are to be held to a less stringent standard than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519
(1972) (per curiam). Neither that Court nor other courts, however, have been
willing to abrogate basic pleading essentials in pro se suits. See, e.g., id. at 521
(holding petitioner to standards of Conley v. Gibson); Merritt v. Faulkner, 697
F.2d 761 (7th Cir.) (duty to be less stringent with pro se complaint does not
require court to conjure up unplead allegations), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 986
(1983); McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16 (1st Cir.1979) (same); Jarrell v. Tisch,
656 F. Supp. 237 (D.D.C. 1987) (pro se plaintiffs should plead with requisite
specificity so as to give defendants notice); Holsey v. Collins, 90 F.R.D. 122
(D. Md. 1981) (even pro se litigants must meet some minimum standards).

3

Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989); see also Brown v. Matauszak, No. 09-2259,
2011 WL 285251, at *5 (6th Cir. Jan. 31, 2011) (affirming dismissal of pro se complaint for
failure to comply with “unique pleading requirements” and stating “a court cannot ‘create a
claim which [a plaintiff] has not spelled out in his pleading’”) (quoting Clark v. Nat’l Travelers
Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975)) (alteration in original); Payne v. Sec’y of
Treas., 73 F. App’x 836, 837 (6th Cir. 2003) (affirming sua sponte dismissal of complaint
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and stating, “[n]either this court nor the district court is
required to create Payne’s claim for her”); cf. Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004) (“District
judges have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants.”); Young Bok Song v.
Gipson, 423 F. App’x 506, 510 (6th Cir. 2011) (“[W]e decline to affirmatively require courts to
ferret out the strongest cause of action on behalf of pro se litigants. Not only would that duty be
overly burdensome, it would transform the courts from neutral arbiters of disputes into advocates
for a particular party. While courts are properly charged with protecting the rights of all who
come before it, that responsibility does not encompass advising litigants as to what legal theories
they should pursue.”).
B.

§ 1983 Claim
Williams filed his complaint on the court-supplied form for actions under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Section 1983 provides:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects,
or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within
the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that
in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in
such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a
declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the
purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the

4

District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of
Columbia.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) a deprivation
of rights secured by the “Constitution and laws” of the United States (2) committed by a
defendant acting under color of state law. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 150
(1970).
1.

Twombly Standard

The complaint contains no factual allegations against any of the named defendants, but
rather merely supplies legal conclusions. When a complaint fails to allege any action by a
defendant, it necessarily fails to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly,
550 U.S. at 570.
2.

Eighth Amendment Claim for Medical Indifference

Williams’s claims cruel and unusal punishment regarding the conditions at the Jail. For a
convicted prisoner, such a claim arises under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and
unusual punishments.

See generally Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991).

For pretrial

detainees, “the ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ proscription of the Eighth Amendment to the
Constitution does not apply,” because “as a pre-trial detainee [the plaintiff is] not being
‘punished,’” Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 106 (2d Cir. 2000). Instead, a person detained
prior to conviction receives protection against mistreatment at the hands of prison officials under
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if held in state custody. Caiozzo v.
Koreman, 581 F.3d 63, 69 (2d Cir. 2009); Liscio v. Warren, 901 F.2d 274, 275–76 (2d Cir.1990).
On June 22, 2015, the Supreme Court held, in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015),
that excessive force claims brought by pretrial detainees must be analyzed under a Fourteenth
Amendment standard of objective reasonableness, rejecting a subjective standard that takes into

5

account a defendant’s state of mind. Id. at 2472-73. It is unclear whether or to what extent the
holding in Kingsley may affect the deliberate indifference standard for claims concerning an
inmate’s health or safety, which the Sixth Circuit applies to both pretrial detainees and convicted
prisoners. See Morabito v. Holmes, 628 F. App’x 353, 356-58 (6th Cir. 2015) (applying, even
after the decision in Kingsley, the objective reasonableness standard to pretrial detainee’s
excessive force claims and the Eighth Amendment’s deliberate indifference standard to denial of
medical care claim). Absent further guidance, the Court will continue to apply the deliberate
indifference analysis to claims concerning a pretrial detainee’s health and safety.
An Eighth Amendment claim consists of both objective and subjective components.
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992);
Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298; Williams v. Curtin, 633 F.3d at 383; Mingus v. Butler, 591 F.3d 474,
479-80 (6th Cir. 2010). The objective component requires that the deprivation be “sufficiently
serious.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8; Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298.
To satisfy the objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must show
that he “is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm,” Farmer, 511
U.S. at 834; see also Miller v. Calhoun Cnty., 408 F.3d 803, 812 (6th Cir. 2005), or that he has
been deprived of the “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,” Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298
(internal quotation marks omitted); see also Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513, 525 (6th Cir. 2004)
(“To succeed in an Eighth Amendment challenge, [a prisoner] must establish that . . . a single,
identifiable necessity of civilized human existence is being denied . . . .”). The Constitution
“does not mandate comfortable prisons.” Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). “[R]outine discomfort is part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for
their offenses against society.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9 (internal quotation marks and citation

6

omitted). Thus, “extreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions-of-confinement
claim.” Id. at 9.
In considering the types of conditions that constitute a substantial risk of serious harm,
the Court evaluates not only the seriousness of the potential harm and the likelihood that the
harm will actually occur, but evidence that unwilling exposure to that risk violates contemporary
standards of decency, i.e., that society does not choose to tolerate the risk in its prisons. Helling
v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 36 (1993). The Supreme Court has also emphasized that prisoners
can rarely establish an Eighth Amendment violation from a combination of conditions of
confinement that, in themselves, do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation:
Some conditions of confinement may establish an Eighth Amendment violation
“in combination” when each would not do so alone, but only when they have a
mutually enforcing effect that produces the deprivation of a single, identifiable
human need such as food, warmth, or exercise—for example, a low cell
temperature at night combined with a failure to issue blankets. To say that some
prison conditions may interact in this fashion is a far cry from saying that all
prison conditions are a seamless web for Eighth Amendment purposes. Nothing
as amorphous as “overall conditions” can rise to the level of cruel and unusual
punishment when no specific deprivation of a single human need exists.
Wilson, 501 U.S. at 304-05 (citation omitted); see also Thompson, 29 F.3d at 242 (“Eighth
Amendment claims may not be based on the totality of the circumstances, but rather must
identify a specific condition that violates” a particular right); Carver v. Knox Cnty., Tenn., 887
F.2d 1287, 1294 (6th Cir. 1989) (same).
To establish the subjective component of an Eighth Amendment violation, a prisoner
must demonstrate that the official acted with the requisite intent, that is, that he had a
“sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; see also Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297,
302-03. The plaintiff must show that the prison officials acted with “deliberate indifference” to a
substantial risk that the prisoner would suffer serious harm. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; Wilson,

7

501 U.S. at 303; Helling, 509 U.S. at 32; Woods v. Lecureux, 110 F.3d 1215, 1222 (6th Cir.
1997); Street v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d 810, 814 (6th Cir. 1996); Taylor v. Mich. Dep’t of
Corr., 69 F.3d 76, 79 (6th Cir. 1995). “[D]eliberate indifference describes a state of mind more
blameworthy than negligence.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835. Thus,
[a] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for
denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of
and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both
be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk
of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference. This approach
comports best with the text of the Eighth Amendment as our cases have
interpreted it. The Eighth Amendment does not outlaw cruel and unusual
“conditions”; it outlaws cruel and unusual “punishments.” An act or omission
unaccompanied by knowledge of a significant risk of harm might well be
something society wishes to discourage, and if harm does result society might
well wish to assure compensation. The common law reflects such concerns when
it imposes tort liability on a purely objective basis. . . . But an official’s failure to
alleviate a significant risk that he should have perceived but did not, while no
cause for commendation, cannot under our cases be condemned as the infliction
of punishment.
Id. at 837-38, 114 S. Ct. at 1979 (emphasis added; citations omitted); see also Garretson v. City
of Madison Heights, 407 F.3d 789, 796 (6th Cir. 2005) (“If the officers failed to act in the face of
an obvious risk of which they should have known but did not, then they did not violate the
Fourteenth Amendment.”). The subjective component must be evaluated for each defendant
individually. Bishop v. Hackel, 636 F.3d 757, 767 (6th Cir. 2011); see also id. at 768 (“[W]e
must focus on whether each individual Deputy had the personal involvement necessary to permit
a finding of subjective knowledge.”).
There are no allegations that any named defendant was directly involved with the alleged
conditions or that they had a culpable state of mind; therefore, the subjective component to the
allegations is not met.

8

For all of the foregoing reasons, Williams’s complaint is subject to dismissal in its
entirety for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
III.

LEAVE TO AMEND

The Sixth Circuit has held that a district court may allow a prisoner to amend his
complaint to avoid a sua sponte dismissal under the PLRA. LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944,
951 (6th Cir. 2013); see also Brown v. R.I., No. 12-1403, 2013 WL 646489, at *1 (1st Cir. Feb.
22, 2013) (per curiam) (“Ordinarily, before dismissal for failure to state a claim is ordered, some
form of notice and an opportunity to cure the deficiencies in the complaint must be afforded.”).
Leave to amend is not required where a deficiency cannot be cured. Brown, 2013 WL 646489, at
*1; Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. United States, 257 F.3d 31, 37 (1st Cir. 2001) (“This does not mean, of
course, that every sua sponte dismissal entered without prior notice to the plaintiff automatically
must be reversed. If it is crystal clear that the plaintiff cannot prevail and that amending the
complaint would be futile, then a sua sponte dismissal may stand.”); Grayson v. Mayview State
Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002) (“in forma pauperis plaintiffs who file complaints
subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) should receive leave to amend unless amendment would
be inequitable or futile”); Curley v. Perry, 246 F.3d 1278, 1284 (10th Cir. 2001) (“We agree with
the majority view that sua sponte dismissal of a meritless complaint that cannot be salvaged by
amendment comports with due process and does not infringe the right of access to the courts.”).
IV.

CONCLUSION

The Court DISMISSES the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be
granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). However, the court cannot
conclude that any amendment to Williams’s claims would be futile as a matter of law.
Therefore, Williams is GRANTED leave to amend his complaint. Any amendment must be filed

9

within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this order. Williams is advised that an amended
complaint supersedes the original complaint and must be complete in itself without reference to
the prior pleadings. The text of the complaint must allege sufficient facts to support each claim
without reference to any extraneous document. Any exhibits must be identified by number in the
text of the amended complaint and must be attached to the complaint. All claims alleged in an
amended complaint must arise from the facts alleged in the original complaint or the first
amended complaint. Williams may add additional defendants provided that the claims against
the new parties arise from the acts and omissions set forth in the original or first amended
complaints. Each claim for relief must be stated in a separate count and must identify each
defendant sued in that count. If Williams fails to file an amended complaint within the time
specified, the Court will assess a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and enter judgment.
Williams shall promptly notify the Clerk, in writing, of any change of address or
extended absence. Failure to comply with these requirements, or any other order of the Court,
may result in the dismissal of this case without further notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/James D. Todd______________
JAMES D. TODD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10