United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Greeneville
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RONNIE GREER JUDGE
Jones, a prisoner confined in the Sullivan County Detention
Center ("SCDC") in Blountville, Tennessee, brings
this pro se civil rights complaint for injunctive and
monetary relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
three correctional officers at the SCDC, in their individual
and official capacities [Doc. 1]. Plaintiff has also filed an
application to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee,
which is supported by a certified copy of his inmate trust
account statement and which shows that he lacks sufficient
financial resources to pay the filing fee all at once [Doc.
3]. The application is GRANTED
[Id.], and Plaintiff need not pay an upfront filing
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), makes a
prisoner, such as Plaintiff, responsible for paying the
filing fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), and he therefore is
ASSESSED the full filing fee of three hundred, fifty dollars
custodian of Plaintiff s inmate trust account at the
institution wherein he resides shall submit, as an initial
partial payment, whichever is the greater of: (a) twenty
percent (20%) of the average monthly deposits to Plaintiffs
inmate trust account; or (b) twenty percent (20%) of the
average monthly balance in his inmate trust account for the
six-month period preceding the filing of the complaint. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A) and (B). Thereafter, the trust
account custodian shall submit twenty percent (20%) of
Plaintiff s preceding monthly income (or income credited to
his trust account for the preceding month), but only when
such monthly income exceeds $10.00, until the full filing fee
of $350.00 has been paid to the Clerk's Office. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(2); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d
601, 607 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).
should be sent to: The Clerk, United States District Court,
220 West Depot Street, Ste. 200, Greeneville, TN 37743. To
ensure compliance with the fee-collection procedure, the
Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this
Memorandum and Order to the custodian of inmate accounts at
the SCDC. The Clerk is also DIRECTED to
furnish a copy of this Order to the Court's financial
deputy. This Order shall be placed in Plaintiffs
institutional file and follow him if he is transferred to
another correctional facility.
Court must now review the complaint to determine whether it
states a claim entitling Plaintiff to relief or is frivolous
or malicious or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and
§ 1915A. If so, this suit must be dismissed. In
performing this task, the Court bears in mind the rule that
pro se pleadings filed in civil rights cases must be
liberally construed and held to a less stringent standard
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
the complaint must be sufficient "to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face, " Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007),
which simply means that the factual content pled by a
plaintiff must permit a court "to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Unless a
plaintiff nudges his claims "across the line from
conceivable to plausible, his complaint must be
dismissed." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. The
standard articulated in Twombly and Iqbal
"governs dismissals for failure state a claim under
[§§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)] because the
relevant statutory language tracks the language in Rule
12(b)(6)." Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71
(6th Cir. 2010).
order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff
must establish that he was deprived of a federal right by a
person acting under color of state law. Paige v.
Coyner, 614 F.3d 273, 278 (6th Cir. 2010). See also
Braley v. City of Pontiac, 906 F.2d 220, 223 (6th Cir.
1990) ("Section 1983 does not itself create any
constitutional rights; it creates a right of action for the
vindication of constitutional guarantees found
Court examines the complaint under these guidelines.
asserts that, on June 10, 2015, an inmate at the SCDC whose
name was Hatcher created a disturbance, by shaking the bars
and throwing feces. Although Hatcher admitted to engaging in
the conduct and a correctional officer, Officer B. Peters,
identified Hatcher as the individual whom he had seen on
camera participating in the disquieting incident, several
officers, including Defendants Clemons, Preston White and B.
Beach, entered the area and ordered the inmates to get down
on the ground. Plaintiff claims that, the evening preceding
this event, he had suffered pains in his chest and side and
blood pressure escalating to "sky high" levels-
symptoms which caused him to be seen by medical providers
five times. As officers were restraining Inmate Hatcher,
Plaintiff identified Hatcher as the culprit-indeed, Hatcher
acknowledged his role in the disturbance-denied causing the
disturbance, and informed the officers that he was having
more chest pains.
officers ignored Plaintiffs warning as to the physical
difficulty he was experiencing, opened his cell door, and
ordered Plaintiff to get down on the ground. Plaintiff began
to go down to the ground and was not resisting the order,
though he was complying with the order "in a slowly
manner." Despite his attempted, albeit slow, compliance
with the order, Plaintiff was shot five times with a pepper
ball gun. Plaintiff was punched in the head with a closed
fist and in ...