United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Columbia Division
MITCHELL SCOTT, No. 394044, Plaintiff,
WARDEN CHERRY LINDAMOOD, et al, Defendants.
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Scott, an inmate of the South Central Correctional Facility
in Clifton, Tennessee, brings this pro se, in forma
pauperis action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Warden Cherry Lindamood, Unit Manager f/n/u Staggs,
and Sergeant f/n/u Trefton, alleging violations of the
Plaintiffs civil rights. (Doc. No. 1). As relief, the
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and
injunctive relief. (Id. at p. 2).
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.
PLRA Screening Standard
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 1915 A 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, " iji
§ 1915 A(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); Jourdanv.
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
brings his federal claims 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.
Motion to Amend
filing his complaint, the Plaintiff filed a motion to amend
his complaint "to add proper defendants." (Doc. No.
3). "The court should freely give leave [to amend] when
justice so requires." Rule 15(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.;
Rose v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co.. 203 F.3d
417, 420 (6th Cir. 2000). A motion to amend should not be
denied unless there is evidence of undue delay, bad faith,
undue prejudice to the non-movant, or futility. Ziegler
v. IBP Hog Market Inc., 249 F.3d 509, 519 (6th Cir.
2001); see Foman v. Davis. 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
is no evidence before the Court suggesting any intent on the
part of the Plaintiff to delay or prejudice this action.
Therefore, the Court will grant the Plaintiff s motion to
amend. The following individuals will be added as Defendants
to this action: Tony Parker, Captain Keeton, Sergeant
Villanova, and Donald Bright.
amended complaint alleges that, on November 3 0, 2016, while
incarcerated at the South Central Correctional Complex, the
Plaintiff informed Defendant Sergeant f/n/u Trefton that the
Plaintiff needed to clean his cell "in order to
pray." (Doc. No. 1 at p. 2). According to the amended
complaint, the Plaintiff is a Sunni Muslim, he prays to Allah
five times a day, his cell was filthy, and he needed to clean
his cell before praying. (Id.) The complaint ...