United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
DAVEN DECARLO TURNER, No. 237292, Plaintiff,
DARRON HALL, et al., Defendants.
A. TRAUGER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Decarlo Turner, an inmate of the Davidson County
Sheriff's Office in Nashville, Tennessee, brings this
pro se, in forma pauperis action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, against Darron Hall, Elizabeth Foy, Granvisse L.
Earl, Austin Bodie, Kita Haynes, and Seth Norman, alleging a
violation of his civil rights. (Docket No. 1). The plaintiff
seeks injunctive relief, damages, and release from
incarceration. (Id. at p. 8).
plaintiff's 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
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).
Sixth Circuit has confirmed that the dismissal standard
articulated by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 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, 630 F.3d
468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). Thus, to survive scrutiny on
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, LLC, 561F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009)
(citing Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th
Cir. 2009) (citations omitted)).
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).
Section 1983 Standard
plaintiff brings his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. 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 § 1983, a plaintiff must allege and show two
elements: (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. Tahfs v. Proctor, 316 F.3d 584, 590
(6th Cir. 2003); 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
complaint alleges that, on May 19, 2016, the plaintiff was
booked into the Davidson County Criminal Justice Center
during which time his name was entered into the jail
management system as “DAVEN D. TURNER.” The
plaintiff expressed his disapproval for entering his name
into the computer system in all capital letters. He believes
that having his name in all capital letters
“indicat[es] that the NAME pertains to a corporation,
an artificial person.” (Docket No. 1 at p. 6). He
claims that the defendants, by refusing to enter the
plaintiff's name into the jail management system in lower
case letters, violated his civil rights because a corporation
has fewer rights than a human being. (Id. at p. 7).
review of the court's records shows that, on June 17,
2016, the plaintiff filed a federal civil rights action
against f/n/u Gearl, Kita Haynes, District Attorney of Judge
Normans [sic] Criminal Court, Criminal Justice Center
Administration, Darron Hall, Granvisse L. Earl, Austin Bodie,
and Elizabeth Foy alleging essentially the same facts as
those raised in the instant complaint. See Daven Decarlo
Turner v. f/n/u Gearl, et al., No. 3:16-cv-01442 (M.D.
Tenn. 2016)(Sharp, J.). On July 21, 2016, the Honorable Chief
Judge Kevin H. Sharp dismissed that action for failure to
state claims upon which relief can be granted as to all
defendants. (Id., Doc. Nos. 7 and 8).
broad doctrine of res judicata encompasses both
claim preclusion (res judicata) and issue preclusion
(collateral estoppel). J.Z.G. Res., Inc. v. Shelby Ins.
Co., 84 F.3d 211, 214 (6th Cir. 1996). Under
claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits bars any and
all claims by the parties or their privies based on the same
cause of action, as to every matter actually litigated, as
well as every theory of recovery that could have been
presented. Id. Under issue preclusion, once an issue
actually is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction,
that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on
a different cause of action when used against any party to
the prior litigation. Montana v. United States, 440
U.S. 147, 152-54 (1979). Dismissal with prejudice is
considered a ...