United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Roberts filed this pro se civil rights complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officer Cothron [F/N/U]
and the Mt. Juliet Police Department. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff
was confined at the Wilson County Jail in Lebanon, Tennessee,
at the time he filed this action, and is currently confined
at the Smith County Sheriff's Office in Carthage,
Tennessee. Plaintiff has also filed an application to proceed
in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 7.)
Application to Proceed as a Pauper
prisoner bringing a civil action may be permitted to file
suit without prepaying the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a). Because it appears from Plaintiff's in forma
pauperis application that he lacks sufficient financial
resources from which to pay the full filing fee in advance,
Plaintiff's application (Doc. No. 7) will be granted.
Plaintiff nonetheless remains responsible for paying the full
filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff will
therefore be assessed the full $350.00 filing fee, to be paid
as directed in the accompanying Order.
Court is required to conduct an initial review and dismiss
the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court must
construe the pro se complaint liberally, United
States v. Smotherman, 838 F.3d 736 (6th Cir. 2016)
(citing Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)),
and accept the plaintiff's factual allegations as true
unless they are entirely without credibility. See Thomas
v. Eby, 481 F.3d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992)).
alleges that on January 25, 2017, the Mt. Juliet Police
Department, including Officer Cothron,
“surrounded” him. (Doc. No. 1 at 7.) Officer
Cothron ordered Plaintiff to walk backwards, and Plaintiff
complied. (Id.) At some point, Officer Cothron
twisted Plaintiff's arm with “excessive
force” and arrested Plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff
experienced significant pain and “tried to explain that
he was hurt.” (Id.) Officer Cothron did not
ask Plaintiff if he needed to go to the hospital.
was taken to Wilson County Jail, where a guard asked
Plaintiff if he was “OK.” (Id.)
Plaintiff stated that he thought his arm was broken, and the
guard called for a nurse. (Id.) The nurse looked at
Plaintiff's arm and told Officer Cothron that Plaintiff
needed to go to the emergency room. (Id.) Officer
Cothron took Plaintiff to the emergency room at Wilson County
Hospital. (Id.) Plaintiff received x-rays, the
doctor informed Plaintiff that his “top bone” was
broken, and Plaintiff's arm was fitted with a
Standard of Review
determine whether a prisoner's complaint “fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted” under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court
applies the same standard as under Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hill v. Lappin,
630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). The Court therefore
accepts “all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint
as true, [and] ‘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
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009)). An
assumption of truth does not, however, extend to allegations
that consist of legal conclusions or “‘naked
assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
557 (2007)). A pro se pleading must be liberally
construed and “held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
set forth facts that, when construed favorably, establish (1)
the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or
laws of the United States (2) caused by a person acting under
the color of state law.” Dominguez v. Corr. Med.
Servs., 555 F.3d 543, 549 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Sigley v. City of Parma Heights, 437 F.3d 527, 533
(6th Cir. 2006)).
Mt. Juliet ...