United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Roy Chadwick, proceeding pro se, has filed a civil
rights complaint against Defendants Sheriff Robert Bryan,
Nurse Rena [L/N/U], Wisardt Sinchat,  Anthony Lopez, CCA and Dr.
James Bridges. (Doc. No. 1.) Before the court is the
plaintiff's application to proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. No. 6) In addition, his 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, and 42 U.S.C. §
Application to Proceed as a Pauper
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
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Because the plaintiff
properly submitted an application to proceed in forma
pauperis and because it appears from his submissions
that the plaintiff lacks sufficient financial resources from
which to pay the full filing fee in advance, the application
(ECF No. 6) will be granted.
under § 1915(b), the plaintiff nonetheless 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, the plaintiff
will be assessed the full $350 filing fee, to be paid as
directed in the accompanying order.
Dismissal of the Complaint
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to
conduct an initial review of any complaint filed in forma
pauperis and to dismiss the complaint if it is facially
frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Begola v. Brown, 172 F.3d 47 (Table), 1998 WL
894722, at *1 (6th Cir. Dec. 14, 1998) (citing McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997),
overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549
U.S. 199 (2007)). The Court must construe a pro se
plaintiff's complaint liberally, Boag v.
McDaniel, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982), and accept the
plaintiff's allegations as true unless they are clearly
irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
plaintiff alleges that on December 5, 2016 he was taken to a
facility to have surgery for a hernia in his groin. (Doc. No.
1 at Page ID# 7.) On December 7, 2016, his right testicle
started swelling. (Id.) He asked Deputy Conner to
take him to medical. (Id.) Defendant Nurse Renee and
her supervisor were present in the medical clinic.
(Id.) After Plaintiff was taken to medical, Deputy
Darbone told Plaintiff that Deputy Hensley was taking
Plaintiff back to the hospital, where he spent an unspecified
period of time. (Id.) When Plaintiff returned to the
jail, Defendant Nurse Renee had Plaintiff placed in medical.
(Id.). Plaintiff was housed in “M-16.”
(Id.) Deputy Darbone told Plaintiff that he did not
know why Plaintiff had been placed in “M-16”
because that is where they “put people [who] are being
punished.” (Id.) Plaintiff was very
uncomfortable in “M-16” and told every guard he
saw. (Id. at Page ID ## 6-7.) Plaintiff alleges that
“M-16” was cold, “maybe 20-25 degrees
colder than the rest of the jail.” (Id. at
Page ID# 7.) Plaintiff was housed in “M-16” for
several days. (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff asked to talk
with someone about moving out of “M-16.”
(Id.) Deputy Hensley had Plaintiff moved to the main
part of the medical unit. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges
that because of the poor conditions in “M-16” he
was not “cleared by medical for another week.”
Standard of Review
action is filed in forma pauperis, “the court
shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines
that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In assessing whether the complaint in this
case states a claim on which relief may be granted, the court
applies the standards under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, as construed by Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009), and Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007).
See Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir.
2010) (holding that “the dismissal standard articulated
in Iqbal and Twombly governs dismissals for
failure to state a claim under [§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)]
because the relevant statutory language tracks the language
in Rule 12(b)(6)”). “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 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Pro
se litigants, however, are not exempt from the
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989).
The court is not required to create a claim for the
plaintiff. Clark v. Nat'l Travelers Life Ins.
Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975); see also
Brown v. Matauszak, 415 F. App'x 608, 613 (6th Cir.
2011) (“[A] court cannot create a claim which [a
plaintiff] has not spelled out in his pleading”)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Payne v.
Sec'y of Treas., 73 F. App'x 836, 837 (6th Cir.
2003) (affirming sua sponte dismissal of complaint
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) and stating,
“[n]either this court nor the district court is
required to create Payne's claim for her”).
Defendants Bryan, Sinchat, ...