United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Columbia Division
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Johnson, an inmate at the Turney Center Industrial Complex
(“TCIX”) in Clifton, Tennessee, filed this
pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against Tony Parker, Kevin Genovese, Jason Clendenion,
CERT Team Member Holland [F/N/U], CERT Team Commander Dickson
[F/N/U], and John Doe. Plaintiff also filed an application to
proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.)
Application to Proceed as a Pauper
Court may authorize a prisoner to file a civil 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. 2) will be granted. Plaintiff must
nonetheless pay the $350.00 filing fee, so the fee will be
assessed as directed in the accompanying Order. 28 U.S.C.
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); 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(c)(1). The Court must construe a 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 July 17, 2017, Defendant Dickson slammed his
face into a wall, knocking out Plaintiff's upper front
teeth and chipping two of Plaintiff's bottom teeth. (Doc.
No. 1 at 2.) Defendant Holland shot Plaintiff with a taser
five times while he was handcuffed on the ground.
(Id.) Holland told Plaintiff he would “kill
[Plaintiff] if [they were] on the streets, you black funk
[sic].” (Id.) Defendant Clendenion was
present, but did not intervene. (Id.) Following this
incident, Plaintiff was placed in segregation and did not
receive treatment from a dentist for one week. (Id.)
After “several” visits, the dentist informed
Plaintiff that Defendant Genovese would not approve the cost
of fixing his teeth, and would not allow him to “go to
special needs for medical treatment.” (Id.)
Holland, Dickson, and Clendenion also forced Plaintiff to
stand “outside on the black top bare footed in 90
degree temperature, ” burning Plaintiff's feet and
causing him “serious pain.” (Id.) For
seven days, the defendants withheld Plaintiff's property,
did not allow him to take a shower or have outside
recreation, and did not process his grievances.
(Id.) Clendenion “put out the word to his
staff not to allow[ Plaintiff] to call [his] family.”
(Id.) Meanwhile, Dickson and Holland continually
ridiculed Plaintiff for having missing teeth. (Id.)
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, 551 U.S. at 94 (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)).
Dismissal of ...