United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Columbia Division
WILLIAM J. HAYNES JR., United States District Judge.
Warren Glasby, an inmate at the Marshall County Jail in
Lewisburg, Tennessee, filed this pro se action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants: Marshall County Jail,
Billy Lamb, and Sabrina Patterson. Plaintiff requests the
opportunity for an outside job or to be transferred to
another facility. Plaintiff seeks damages for emotional
distress. Before the Court is Plaintiffs application to
proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket Entry No. 2).
Plaintiffs complaint (Docket Entry No. 1) is also before the
Court for an initial review pursuant to the Prison Litigation
Reform Act ("PLRA"), 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2) and 1915A, and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.
to his complaint, Plaintiff was confined at the Marshall
County Jail and the Defendants prohibited Plaintiff from
applying for an "outside job" that would allow him
to perform job duties outside of the jail facility. (Docket
Entry No. 1, Complaint, at 5). Plaintiff alleges that he
currently has a "rock man job in side."
Id. at 6. Plaintiff alleges that he filed a
grievance stating that he suffered discrimination regarding
available job opportunities, and that Marshall County Sheriff
Billy Lamb and Jail Administrator Sabrina Patterson told
Plaintiff that he was not eligible for an outside job due to
his parole violation and charge of "car jacking."
prisoner, Plaintiffs complaint is subject to initial review
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to screen and dismiss the
complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
claims upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §
Sixth Circuit has held that the dismissal standard
articulated by the Supreme Court in Ashcroftv.Iqbal.
556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twomblv. 550 U.S. 544 (2007), "governs dismissals
for failure to state a claim under those statutes because the
relevant statutory language tracks the language in Rule
12(b)(6)." Hill v. Lappin. 630F.3d468, 470-71
(6th Cir. 2010). Thus, to survive initial review, "a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting
Twombly. 550 U.S. at 570). "A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
Id. (citing Twombly. 550 U.S. at 556).
"[A] district court must (1) view the complaint in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff and (2) take all
well-pleaded factual allegations as true." Tackett
v. M & G Polymers. USA. LTC, 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th
Cir. 2009) (citing Gunasekera v. Irwin. 551 F.3d
461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009)). Pro se pleadings are 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.
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff "must set
forth facts that, when construed favorably, establish (1) the
deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of
the United States (2) caused by a person acting under the
color of state law." Burley v. Gagacki, 729
F.3d 610, 619 (6th Cir. 2013).
Defendant Marshall County Jail, a jail is not a
"person" subject to an action under § 1983.
Watson v.Gill. 40 F.App'x 88, 89 (6th Cir.
2002); Travis v. Clinton Cnty. Jail. No. 1:10-cv-
1276, 2011 WL 447000, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 4, 2011)
(citations omitted) ("The jail is a building, not an
entity capable of being sued in its own right."). Thus,
the Court concludes that Plaintiffs complaint fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted against Marshall
County Jail, and all claims against Marshall County Jail
should be dismissed.
next alleges that he should be allowed to apply for any job
while confined at Marshall County Jail, and that the
restrictions onhis job opportunities are the result of
discrimination by Defendants Lamb and Patterson. Yet,
Plaintiff fails to alleges facts reflecting that Defendants
Lamb or Patterson restricted Plaintiffs job opportunities for
a discriminatory reason. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants Lamb and Patterson denied him the opportunity to
apply for an "outside job" because Plaintiff was
arrested on a parole violation and for
"carjacking." In a word, inmates that have
committed certain offenses are ineligible as a matter of j
ail policy from perfomiing jobs outside of the jail facility.
do not have a constitutional right to a job, much less a
particular job. See Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341
(1976); Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 348
(1981):Newsomv.Norris, 888 F.2d 371, 374 (6th Cir.
1989); Ivev v. Wilson. 832 F.2d 950, 955 (6th Cir.
1987). Prison administrators may assign inmates jobs and
wages at their discretion. Miller v. Campbell, 108
F.Supp.2d 960, 967 (W.D. Tenn. 2000). Thus, the Court
concludes that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted because he does not have a
constitutional right to a job.
Plaintiff requests to be transferred to another facility
where he believes more job opportunities will be available to
him and that is closer to his home town. Prisoners do not
have a constitutional right to be confined in a particular
prison. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 23 8(1983);
Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468 (1983)
(superseded by statute on other grounds); Meachum v.
Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976); Beard v.
Livesay, 798 F.2d 874, 876 (6th Cir. 1986). Because
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to choose his
confinement facility, the Court concludes that Plaintiff
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
for these reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs
complaint fails to state claims upon which relief can be
granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Absent an actionable claim, the ...