United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
EDGAR T. LOVE, # 191291, Plaintiff,
HAROLD TAYLOR, et al., Defendants.
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
T. Love, an inmate of the Davidson County Sheriff's
Office in Nashville, Tennessee, filed this pro se, in
forma pauperis action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Harold Taylor, Barry Kidd, Darren Hall, and Dr. f/n/u
Norfleet, alleging violations of his civil rights after a
slip and fall incident. (Doc. No. 1).
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.
PLRA Screening Standard
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss any
portion of a civil complaint filed in forma pauperis
that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
is frivolous, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief. Section 1915A similarly requires
initial review of any “complaint in a civil action in
which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity, ”
id. § 1915A(a), and summary dismissal of the
complaint on the same grounds as those articulated in §
1915(e)(2)(B). Id. § 1915A(b).
Sixth Circuit has confirmed that the dismissal standard
articulated by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), “governs
dismissals for failure to state a claim under those statutes
because the relevant statutory language tracks the language
in Rule 12(b)(6).” Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d
468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). Thus, to survive scrutiny on
initial review, “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[A] district court
must (1) view the complaint in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff and (2) take all well-pleaded factual
allegations as true.” Tackett v. M & G
Polymers, USA, LLC, 561F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009)
(citing Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th
Cir. 2009) (citations omitted)).
pro se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent
standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Jourdan v.
Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991), the courts'
“duty to be ‘less stringent' with pro
se complaints does not require us to conjure up
[unpleaded] allegations.” McDonald v. Hall,
610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979) (citation omitted).
Section 1983 Standard
brings his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Title
42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates a cause of action against any
person who, acting under color of state law, abridges
“rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws . . . .” To state a claim under
§ 1983, a plaintiff must allege and show two elements:
(1) that he was deprived of a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) that the
deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of
state law. Tahfs v. Proctor, 316 F.3d 584, 590
(6th Cir. 2003); 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Motion to Amend the Complaint
after filing his original complaint, the Plaintiff filed a
document entitled “Civil Claims, ” which the
Court construes as a motion to amend his complaint. (Doc. No.
4). Rule 15(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
states that leave to amend should be freely given “when
justice so requires.” In deciding whether to grant a
motion to amend, courts should consider undue delay in
filing, lack of notice to the opposing party, bad faith by
the moving party, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party,
and futility of amendment. Brumbalough v. Camelot Care
Ctrs., Inc., 427 F.3d 996, 1001 (6th Cir. 2005).
proposed amendments to the complaint provide additional
context for the claims raised in the original complaint.
There appears to be no undue prejudice to the opposing party
by permitting the Plaintiff to amend his complaint at this
time; the Defendants have not been served. The Court
therefore will grant the motion to amend and screen the
original complaint, as informed by the Plaintiff's
proposed amendments to the original complaint, pursuant to
the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
complaint alleges that, on September 16, 2017, while an
inmate of the Davidson County Sheriff's Office, the
Plaintiff slipped and fell due to a puddle of water from a
leaking urinal. As a result of the fall, the Plaintiff
injured his neck and back. ...