United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Greeneville
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
W. PHILLIPS UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE.
pro se, Stanley James, an inmate confined in the Hardeman
County Correctional Facility, has submitted this civil rights
complaint for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [Doc. 2],
as well as an application for leave to proceed without
payment of fees or costs [Doc. 1] and a motion to admit
exhibits as evidence [Doc. 3].
claims that The City of Knoxville (“Defendant”)
“fail[ed] to adequately train its police officers
regarding the Constitutional rights of criminal
defendants” [Doc. 2 p. 5]. For the reasons set forth
herein, Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis will be GRANTED. However, no
service shall issue, and this complaint will be sua
sponte DISMISSED and Plaintiff's remaining motion
will therefore be DENIED.
The Filing Fee
on the financial data provided by Plaintiff, his application
to proceed without prepayment of fees [Doc. 1] is GRANTED.
Nonetheless, because Plaintiff is an inmate, he is ASSESSED
the filing fee of three hundred and fifty dollars ($350).
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 607 (6th Cir.
1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199 (2007). The custodian of Plaintiff's inmate
trust account at the institution where he now resides shall
submit, as an initial partial payment, whichever is the
greater of: (a) twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly
deposits to Plaintiff's 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 has been paid to
the Clerk's Office. McGore, 114 F.3d at 607.
should be sent to: Clerk, USDC; 220 W. Depot St., Suite
200; Greeneville, TN 37743. To ensure compliance with
the fee-collection procedure, the Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a
copy of this order to the custodian of inmate accounts at the
institution where Plaintiff is now confined. The Clerk is
also DIRECTED to furnish a copy of this order to the
Court's financial deputy. This order shall be placed in
Plaintiff's prison file and follow him if he is
transferred to another correctional institution.
Screening the Complaint
the PLRA, district courts must screen prisoner complaints and
sua sponte dismiss those that are frivolous or
malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or are against a
defendant who is immune. See, e.g., Benson v.
O'Brian, 179 F.3d 1014 (6th Cir. 1999).
screening this complaint, the Court bears in mind 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). Still, the pleading must be sufficient
“to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face, ” Bell Atl. 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
“facial plausibility” standard does not require
“detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than
an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Id. at 678 (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted). The standard articulated
in Twombly and Iqbal “governs
dismissals for failure to state a claim under [28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A] 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).
state a claim under § 1983, Plaintiff must allege and
show: (1) that he was deprived of a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) that the
deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of
state law. Black v. Barberton Citizens Hosp., 134
F.3d 1265, 1267 (6th Cir. 1998). Both parts of this two-part
test must be satisfied to support a claim under § 1983.
See Christy v. Randlett, 932 F.2d 502, 504 (6th Cir.
brings this § 1983 complaint against the City of
Knoxville, asserting that the City failed to adequately train
its police officers which resulted in investigator, Andrew
Boatmuan and Lieutenant Kenny Miller concealing exculpatory
material evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland,
373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny.
Claims Barred by Heck v. Humphrey
claim that Investigator Boatmuan and Lieutenant Miller
withheld material, discoverable evidence is barred by
Heck because the claim necessarily implies the
invalidity of Plaintiff's convictions and sentences.
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Under
Heck, a plaintiff cannot pursue a § 1983 claim
that, if successful, would necessarily imply the invalidity
of a previous conviction or sentence, unless the ...