United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Knoxville
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
S. MATTICE, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court is in receipt of a pro se prisoner's complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [Docs. 2 & 5] and motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 1].
has failed to submit a certified accounting of his inmate
account for the six-month period preceding the filing of his
§ 1983 complaint, but he alleges that jail officials
refused to comply with the Court's order to produce the
necessary documents [See Docs. 4 & 5-1]. Out of
an abundance of caution, the Court will presume from
Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis that he lacks sufficient financial resources to
pay the filing fee. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915, this motion [Doc. 1] will be GRANTED.
Plaintiff is an inmate in the Campbell County Jail, he will
be ASSESSED the civil filing fee of $350.00.
The custodian of Plaintiff's inmate trust account will be
DIRECTED to submit to the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, 800 Market Street, Suite 130, Knoxville,
Tennessee 37902, as an initial partial payment, the greater
of: (a) twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly deposits
to Plaintiff's inmate trust account; or (b) twenty
percent (20%) of the average monthly balance in his inmate
trust account for the six-month period preceding the filing
of the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) (1) (A) and (B).
Thereafter, the custodian of Plaintiff's inmate trust
account shall submit twenty percent (20%) of Plaintiff's
preceding monthly income (or income credited to
Plaintiff's trust account for the preceding month), but
only when such monthly income exceeds ten dollars ($10.00),
until the full filing fee of three hundred fifty dollars
($350.00) has been paid to the Clerk. 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(b)(2) and 1914(a).
ensure compliance with this fee-collection procedure, the
Clerk will be DIRECTED to mail a copy of
this memorandum and order to the custodian of inmate accounts
at the institution where Plaintiff is now confined, and to
the Attorney General for the State of Tennessee. This order
shall be placed in Plaintiff's prison file and follow him
if he is transferred to another correctional institution. The
Clerk also will be DIRECTED to provide a
copy to the Court's financial deputy.
September 30, 2018, Deputy J. Twitty and Deputy Wilkerson
came to Plaintiff's cell at the Campbell County Jail and
asked Plaintiff to submit to handcuffs [Doc. 2 p. 4].
Plaintiff complied, and Deputy Twitty tightened the handcuffs
to the point it impeded blood flow to Plaintiff's hands
[Id.]. Deputy Twitty began yelling at Plaintiff and
pushing him up the hall, and he grabbed Plaintiff by the hair
and pushed his face into the concrete wall, causing injury to
Plaintiff's eye and mouth [Id.]. Plaintiff
asserts that Deputy Wilkerson attempted to stop Deputy
Twitty, but that Deputy Twitty continued to push Plaintiff
until they reached the booking area, where other officers
took photos of Plaintiff's injuries [Id.].
the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”),
district courts must screen prisoner complaints and sua
sponte dismiss any claims that are frivolous or
malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or are against a
defendant who is immune. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Benson v.
O'Brian, 179 F.3d 1014 (6th Cir. 1999). The
dismissal standard articulated by the Supreme Court in
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and in
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)
“governs dismissals for failure state a claim under [28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A] 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 an initial review
under the PLRA, 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).
liberally construe pro se pleadings filed in civil rights
cases and hold them to a less stringent standard than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Allegations that give rise to a mere
possibility that a plaintiff might later establish
undisclosed facts supporting recovery are not well-pled and
do not state a plausible claim, however. Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555, 570. Further, formulaic and conclusory
recitations of the elements of a claim which are not
supported by specific facts are insufficient to state a
plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 681 (2009).
order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a
plaintiff must establish that he was deprived of a federal
right by a person acting under color of state law. Braley
v. City of Pontiac, 906 F.2d 220, 223 (6th Cir. 1990)
(stating that “Section 1983 does not itself create any
constitutional rights; it creates a right of action for the
vindication of constitutional guarantees found