United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
ABUYUSUF A. el-AMIR, a/k/a JOSEPH HAMPTON, Plaintiff,
MERCURY COURT APARTMENTS, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A.TRAUGER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
plaintiff, Abuyusuf el-Amir, is an inmate at the Hill
Detention Center in Nashville. He has filed pro se a
complaint (Doc. No. 1) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an
application (Doc. No. 2) to proceed in forma pauperis.
appears from the application that the plaintiff lacks
sufficient financial resources from which to pay the fee
required to file the complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff's
application is GRANTED. The Clerk will file
the complaint in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
plaintiff is herewith ASSESSED the civil
filing fee of $350.00. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(1)(A) and (B), the custodian of the plaintiff's
inmate trust account at the institution where he now resides
is directed to submit to the Clerk of Court, as an initial
partial payment, whichever is greater of:
(a) twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly deposits to
the plaintiff's inmate trust account;
(b) twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly balance in
the plaintiff's inmate trust account for the prior six
the custodian shall submit twenty percent (20%) of the
plaintiff's preceding monthly income (or income credited
to the plaintiff's trust account for the preceding
month), but only when such monthly income exceeds ten dollars
($10.00), until the full filing fee of three hundred fifty
dollars ($350.00) as authorized under 28 U.S.C. §
1914(a) has been paid to the Clerk of Court. 28 U.S.C. §
plaintiff brings this action against the Mercury Court
Apartments in Nashville; Urban Housing Solutions; John Doe
#1, Manager of the Mercury Court Apartments; and John Doe #2,
Assistant Manager of the Mercury Court Apartments; seeking
2016, the plaintiff was living in the Mercury Court
Apartments. Doc. No. 1 at 7. He requested that John Doe #2
have his apartment treated for an insect infestation.
Id. After a few weeks, plaintiff was told that the
apartment would be treated. In preparation for the treatment,
he was instructed to bag all his property and take it to the
laundry room for cleaning. Id.
the cleaning process, the plaintiff left his property
“unguarded” in the laundry room. Id. at
8. When the plaintiff returned to the premises three or four
hours later, he discovered that his property had been moved
from the laundry room and dumped in the apartment parking lot
by Mercury Court employees. Id. Some of
plaintiff's property was missing and his apartment had
not been treated for pests. Id.
plaintiff reported his loss to the police but the missing
property was never found. Id. The plaintiff
submitted several more requests to have his apartment treated
for pests “to no avail.” Id. at 9. The
plaintiff then decided to withhold a month's rent so that
he could purchase the chemicals needed to treat the apartment
himself. Id. at 9-10. This led to the plaintiff
being summoned to court where the parties agreed that the
plaintiff would pay his arrearage and the defendants would
treat his apartment for pests. Id. at 10.
the plaintiff returned home on September 29, 2017, he found
that the lock had been changed on his apartment and his
possessions were strewn across the apartment parking lot.
Id. at 11. The plaintiff's apartment had never
been treated for pests. The defendants called the police and
the plaintiff was informed that he had been evicted from the
premises. Id. The plaintiff claims that he was
illegally evicted and that the defendants are liable for the
loss of his personal property.
establish a claim for § 1983 relief, the plaintiff must
plead and prove that a person or persons, while acting under
color of state law, deprived him of some right guaranteed by
the Constitution or laws of the United States. Parratt v.
Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981).
is nothing in the complaint from which the Court could find
that the defendants were acting under color of state law when
he was evicted and his property was lost. As a consequence,
he has failed to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief
can be ...