United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
FRENSLEY MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Billy Baggett, an inmate of the Montgomery County Jail in
Clarksville, Tennessee, filed this pro se, in forma pauperis
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sheriff John
Fuson, Captain M. Pierce, Corporal f/n/u Hannifield, and
Deputy M. Thompson, alleging violations of Plaintiff's
civil and constitutional rights. (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).
court must construe a pro se complaint liberally, United
States v. Smotherman, 838 F.3d 736, 739 (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)). Although 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
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
Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege and show two elements:
(1) he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or
laws of the United States; and (2) the deprivation was caused
by a person acting under color of state law. Dominguez v.
Corr. Med. Servs., 555 F.3d 543, 549 (6th
Cir. 2009)(quoting Sigley v. City of Panama Heights,
437 F.3d 527, 533 (6th Cir. 2006)); 42 U.S.C.
complaint alleges that, while incarcerated at the Montgomery
County Jail on April 19, 2018, Plaintiff “got in an
argument” with another inmate during rec time. (Doc.
No. 1 at 6). Deputy Thompson was in the guard tower at the
time, and he did not intervene or send a floor deputy to
intervene. (Id.) Instead, Thompson sent a deputy to
lock Plaintiff down for 72 hours pursuant to a write-up.
(Id.) Plaintiff was not given a copy of the write-up
and was not allowed to read it. (Id.) Plaintiff
asked to speak with Sergeant Welch or Corporal Riley, but
neither would see Plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff filed a
grievance in an effort to get a hearing, but he has not been
permitted to have a hearing. (Id. at 7). His
placement in lock-down for 72 hours caused Plaintiff to lose
his job and work credits for 30 days. (Id.)
According to Plaintiff, “this made [him] have to serve
an extra 30 days on [his] sentence . . . without no [sic]
hearing at all.” (Id.)
19, 2018, Plaintiff was told that a job board had met and
extended his punishment by six additional months.
(Id.) On May 21, 2018, Plaintiff received a form
signed by Captain Hannifield stating that “they”
voted to extend Plaintiff's punishment by another six
months. (Id.) Plaintiff sent a request to Hannifield
for a copy of the panel's vote and was told that he
needed a subpoena. (Id.) Plaintiff believes that
these actions violate his Federal due process rights.
sues four Defendants in their official capacities only. (Doc.
No. 1 at 2-3). These Defendants are John Fuson, Sheriff of
Montgomery County; M. Pierce, Captain at the Montgomery
County Jail; f/n/u Hannifield, Corporal at the Montgomery