United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Columbia Division
ANTONIO M. CROCKETT, Plaintiff,
ZEBULTON STULTS et al ., Defendants.
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Antonio M. Crocket is a state prisoner presently incarcerated
at the South Central Correctional Facility in Clifton,
Tennessee. Before the court is Plaintiff's application to
proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.) In
addition, Plaintiff filed a form Complaint for Violations of
Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants
Zebulton Stults; Corey Cattrell; Sgt. Leigh Staggs; Rhonda
Staggs; Warden Cherry Lindamood; Correction Corporation of
American Commissioner Jason Woodall and Correction
Corporation of America (“CCA”). As a supplement
to the form Complaint, Plaintiff attached eight hand-written
pages and numerous exhibits.
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 it appears
from Plaintiff's submissions that he 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), Plaintiff 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 that on October 23, 2016, he was being escorted from
the shower facility by Defendants Stults and Cattrell.
Plaintiff was restrained in handcuffs and a belly chain.
According to Plaintiff, Stults and Cattrell attacked him.
Plaintiff alleges that his head was slammed into the ground
rendering him unconscious. When he regained consciousness,
Defendants used their knees to apply all of their weight onto
Plaintiff's head and lower back. Because Plaintiff's
wrists were handcuffed in front of his body and the handcuffs
were attached to a belly chain, Plaintiff was laying on his
wrists which were cut and swollen. Since this incident,
Plaintiff has had constant migraine headaches and back pain.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants suffered no consequences
after they assaulted Plaintiff, and that they continue to
work around Plaintiff.
supplement to the form Complaint, Plaintiff reiterates the
facts alleged in the form Complaint, but alleges that he
filed a grievance regarding the assault. Defendant L. Staggs
denied Plaintiff's grievance. Defendant Lindamood
eventually received his grievance, which she also denied.
Plaintiff complained to his unit manager Defendant R. Staggs
who, he alleges, failed to act on his complaint. Finally,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Woodall refused to review
camera footage taken while Plaintiff was attacked by
Defendants Stults and Cattrell. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants L. Staggs, R. Staggs, Lindamood and Woodall failed
to properly consider his grievances and complaints in an
effort to cover up the assault committed by Defendants Stults
relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and he requests that
the Court order a variety of measures to protect him,
including moving him to a different prison, bring criminal
charges against Defendants Stults and Cattrell and firing
those Defendants who refused to rule in his favor on his
grievances and Defendants Stults and Cattrell.