United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Columbia Division
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW,/TR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Fautt a state prisoner incarcerated at the Maury County Jail
in Columbia, Tennessee, filed a complaint alleging claims
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with
Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §12131 et seq.)
against the Maury County Jail. Before the Court is the
Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.) In addition, the 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 1915A, and 42 U.S.C. §
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a), a prisoner bringing a civil action may
be permitted to file suit without prepaying the filing fee of
$350 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Because the
Plaintiff properly submitted an in forma pauperis
affidavit, and because it appears from his submissions that
the Plaintiff lacks sufficient financial resources from which
to pay the full filing fee in advance, the application (Doc.
No. 2) will be granted.
under § 1915(b), the petitioner remains responsible for
paying the full filing fee. The obligation to pay the fee
accrues at the time the case is filed, but the PLRA provides
prisoner-plaintiffs’ the opportunity to make a
“down payment” of a partial filing fee and to pay
the remainder in installments. Accordingly, Plaintiff will be
assessed the full $350 filing fee, to be paid as directed in
the order accompanying this memorandum opinion.
Standard of Review
the PLRA, the court must conduct an initial review of any
civil complaint brought by a prisoner if it is filed in
forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), seeks
relief from government entities or officials, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, or challenges the prisoner’s conditions
of confinement, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). Upon conducting
this review, the court must dismiss the complaint, or any
portion thereof, 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. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).
The 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).
reviewing the complaint to determine whether it states a
plausible claim, “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)). A pro se pleading must be liberally
construed and “held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
alleges the he is in a wheelchair and classified
“medical PC,” however he is being housed in a
“max pod” at the Maury County Jail. (Doc. No. 1 at
Page ID# 12.) He states that on September 1, 2016, he was
taking a shower using a white plastic lawn chair that the
jail provides for him to take a shower. He alleges that
“[a]ll the trusties [sic] use the same chair to sit in
all day outside.” (Id.) During
Plaintiff’s shower, the chair broke and he fell onto
the shower floor, hitting his head on the shower door, and
then fell further out onto the Pod floor. Plaintiff cried for
help and a few inmates helped him to get the officers’
attention. The officers gave him towels to cover himself and
to rest his head. An ambulance was called and transported
Plaintiff to the emergency room, where he learned that he had
pulled muscles in his back “real bad” and hit his
head. (Id.) Plaintiff was treated and released.
Plaintiff remains in the same Pod and cell, and when he
showers he is given another white chair. Plaintiff alleges
that there are no handicapped rails in the showers or the
alleges that he asked jail personnel for handicapped rails in
the shower and his cell many times. He was told that the
handicapped rails would be obtained, but nothing has been
relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and an injunction
directing the jail to put up handicap railing in the showers
plaintiff seeks to bring suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to
vindicate alleged violations of his federal constitutional
rights. Section 1983 confers a private federal right of
action against any person who, acting under color of state
law, deprives an individual of any right, privilege or
immunity secured by the Constitution or federal laws.
Wurzelbacher v. Jones-Kelley,675 F.3d 580, 583 (6th
Cir. 2012). Thus, to state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff
must allege two elements: (1) a deprivation of rights secured
by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2)
that “the deprivation ...