Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tigner v. Memphis Police Department

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

March 21, 2017

CHARLES HENDERSON TIGNER, IV, Plaintiff,
v.
MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING PENDING MOTIONS, DISMISSING CLAIMS, CERTIFYING AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH, AND NOTIFYING PLAINTIFF OF APPELLATE FILING FEE

          JAMES D. TODD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On April 28, 2016, Plaintiff Charles Henderson Tigner, IV (“Tigner”), who was, at the is currently incarcerated at the Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 accompanied by a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) The Court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assessed the civil filing fee pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)-(b). (ECF No. 4.). The Clerk shall record the Defendants as the Memphis, Tennessee Police Department (“MPD”), MPD Officer Connor Shielling, MPD Officer Gloria Winfrey, and Gwendolyn Morris Scruggs.

         I. The Complaint

         Tigner alleges that he was falsely accused of crimes as well as attacked and brutalized by police officers of the Ridgeway Precinct outside of his children's school on October 30, 2014. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) He contends that Defendant Winfrey was one of the first two responding officers who attempted to seize him by pulling on him and his belongings as well as using pepper spray on him, resulting on Tigner falling to the ground. (Id.) Defendant Winfrey then grabbed and pulled his hair, causing it to rip out and tear from the root, and ripped his deceased mother's ring from his hand. (Id.) Tigner began to flee and was in fear for his life because of what he heard the officers say. (Id.)

         Tigner further alleges that Defendant Shielling was the officer who detained him outside the school. (Id.) Tigner contends that even though he did not resist Defendant Shielling, Defendant Shielling beat him with a baton after he had his hands up, pointed a gun in his face shouting threats and obscenities, punched Tigner in the back and side of his head and, after cuffing Tigner, kicked him in the face. (Id.)

         Tigner was transported to the Ridgeway Precinct where he requested an attorney and attempted to file claims of brutality, excessive force; however, Detective Hobson, who is not a party to this complaint, stated he didn't “want to hear about that shit, we want to hear about the gun.” (Id.) Detectives allegedly continued to question him after he requested counsel. (Id.) Tigner alleges that the detectives of the Ridgeway Precinct conspired to formulate fraudulent and misleading allegations, provided fraudulent accusations in supplements and affidavits, and used the false claims and allegations by Defendant Scruggs to file a false police report which caused Tigner's life to be endangered and led to his incarceration at Shelby County Jail (“Jail”). (Id.) While at the Jail, Tigner allegedly received bad medication that caused a cardiac issue, suffered from migraine headaches and hearing loss caused by the MPD Officers, and suffered emotional distress that caused his blood pressure to be elevated. (Id.)

         Tigner seeks $21.2 million in compensation from defendants. (Id. at 5.)

         By way of background, on February 26, 2015, Tigner was indicted being a felon in position of a firearm in violation of U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and possession of a firearm in a school zone in violation of U.S.C. §§ 922(q)(2)(A) and 924(a)(4). United States v. Tigner, No. 15-20043-JFT (W.D. Tenn.) On March 1, 2017, Tigner was convicted by a jury on both counts. (Id., Crim. ECF Nos. 121 & 123.) The case is currently set for sentencing on May 4, 2017. (Id., Crim. ECF No. 125.)

         II. Analysis

         A. Screening and Standard

          The Court is required to screen prisoner complaints and to dismiss any complaint, or any portion thereof, if the complaint-

(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         In assessing whether the complaint in this case states a claim on which relief may be granted, the court applies the standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), as stated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-79 (2009), and in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). “Accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true, the Court ‘consider[s] the factual allegations in [the] complaint to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.'” Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681) (alteration in original). “[P]leadings that . . . are no more than conclusions . . . are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 n.3 (“Rule 8(a)(2) still requires a ‘showing, ' rather than a blanket ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.