United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND GRANTING LEAVE TO
ANDERSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
February 1, 2017, Plaintiff Danizel Hines, who at the time of
filing was a pre-trial detainee at the Shelby County Criminal
Justice Center (“the jail”), in Memphis,
Tennessee, filed pro se a Complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) The Court granted Hines
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).
(ECF No. 4.) The Clerk is instructed to record the Defendants
as Shelby County,  Sheriff Bill Oldham, Chief Jailer Robert
Moore, and Ms. First Name Unknown (“FNU”)
Hayletts, Aramark Kitchen Manager.
Complaint alleges that while eating his lunch on January 14,
2017, Hines bit into a piece of glass embedded in beans.
(Compl. at 2, ECF No. 1.) Hines notified his pod officer FNU
Burns, who is not a party to this action, that he had found
glass in his lunch and had chipped a tooth. (Id. at
3.) Hines requested medical attention and demanded to speak
with Sgt. M. Williams, the floor supervisor. (Id.)
Hines's requests were denied. When Hines reported the
incident to another pod officer during the next shift, the
officer told Hines that his injury was not that serious
because he was not dead. (Id.) Hines filed a
grievance in which he largely restated these same
allegations. (Id., see also Grievance No.
324271, ECF No. 1-1.)
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 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). The Court
accepts the Complaint's “well-pleaded”
factual allegations as true and then determines whether the
allegations “plausibly suggest an entitlement to
relief.” Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383
(6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681).
Conclusory allegations “are not entitled to the
assumption of truth, ” and legal conclusions
“must be supported by factual allegations.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Ultimately, a complaint need
only contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Rule 8(a)(2) nevertheless requires
factual allegations to make a “showing, rather than a
blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 n.3.
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)). Even so,
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).
And district courts are not required “to ferret out the
strongest cause of action on behalf of pro se
litigants.” Young Bok Song v. Gipson, 423 F.
App'x 506, 510 (6th Cir. 2011). In the final analysis, a
court “cannot create a claim which [a plaintiff] has
not spelled out in his pleading.” Brown v.
Matauszak, 415 F. App'x 608, 612-13 (6th Cir. 2011).
filed his pro se Complaint on the official 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 ...