United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
DEANGELO C. TAYLOR Plaintiff,
JONATHAN LEBO, Warden, Defendant.
ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS, CERTIFYING AN APPEAL WOULD
NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH AND NOTIFYING PLAINTIFF OF
APPELLATE FILING FEE
THOMAS ANDERSON, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24, 2016, Plaintiff Deangelo C. Taylor, an inmate at West
Tennessee State Penitentiary (“WTSP”) in Henning,
Tennessee, filed pro se a Complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 accompanied by a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis. On July 7, 2016, the Court issued an
order granting Taylor leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and assessed the civil filing fee pursuant to
the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)-(b). The Clerk shall record the
defendant as WTSP Warden Jonathan Lebo.
alleges that Warden Lebo placed him in maximum security at
WTSP because Taylor had a “physical
confrontation” with a corrections officer at the Shelby
County Jail on April 22, 2016. (Compl. at 2.) Taylor alleges
that by placing him in maximum security, Warden Lebo has
essentially punished him twice for the same conduct and
caused him to suffer emotional distress. (Id.)
According to the Complaint, Taylor has not received medical
treatment for his emotional distress. (Id.) Taylor
seeks $1 million in damages and an order directing Warden
Lebo to release Taylor from maximum security into the general
population and to lower his security level to minimum
security. (Id. at 3.)
Court is required to screen prisoner complaints and to
dismiss any complaint, or any portion thereof, if the
(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
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also 28 U.S.C. §
assessing whether the Complaint in this case states a claim
on which relief may be granted, the Court applies the
pleading standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), announced in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 677-79 (2009) and 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 assertion, of
entitlement to relief. Without some factual allegation in the
complaint, it is hard to see how a claimant could satisfy the
requirement of providing not only ‘fair notice' of
the nature of the claim, but also ‘grounds' on
which the claim rests.”).
se complaints are to be held ‘to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, ' and
should therefore be liberally construed.”
Williams, 631 F.3d at 383 (quoting Martin v.
Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004)). Pro
se litigants and prisoners are not exempt from the
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989);
see also Brown v. Matauszak, 415 F. App'x 608,
612-13 (6th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal of pro
se complaint for failure to comply with “unique
pleading requirements” and stating “a court
cannot ‘create a claim which [a plaintiff] has not
spelled out in his pleading'”) (quotation omitted);
Young Bok Song v. Gipson, 423 F. App'x 506, 510
(6th Cir. 2011) (“[W]e decline to affirmatively require
courts to ferret out the strongest cause of action on behalf
of pro se litigants. Not only would that duty be
overly burdensome, it would transform the courts from neutral
arbiters of disputes into advocates for a particular party.
While courts are properly charged with protecting the rights
of all who come before it, that responsibility does not
encompass advising litigants as to what legal theories they
filed his Complaint on the court-supplied form for actions
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or
the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person
within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution
and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action
at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for
redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial
officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's
judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory
relief was ...