Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ingle v. Shelby County

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

August 30, 2019

JOHNNY L. INGLE, Plaintiff,
v.
SHELBY COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER TO MODIFY THE DOCKET, DISMISSING COMPLAINT, GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND, AND DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

          THOMAS L. PARKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Johnny L. Ingle, a pretrial detainee at the Shelby County Criminal Justice Center (“Jail”) in Memphis, Tennessee, sues pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and moves to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1; ECF No. 2.) The Court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assessed the civil filing fee under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)-(b). (ECF No. 5.) The Court directs the Clerk to record the Defendants as Shelby County, [1] Shelby County Mayor Lee Harris, Shelby County Sheriff Floyd Bonner, Jr., and Shelby County Chief Jailer Kirk Fields.[2]

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff alleges that the state authorities transferred him from the Shelby County Correctional Center to the Jail, where those jailers forced him to stay awake and sit in a hard, plastic chair for three days even though holding cells were available. (ECF No. 1-1 at PageID 4.) He alleges the authorities gave him no blanket or warm garment to wear and they prevented him from even tucking his arms into his shirt for warmth. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges he tried to sleep on the floor, but officers would kick him awake. (Id.) He alleges they gave only stale cookies and soggy bologna sandwiches to eat and nauseatingly sweet juice to drink. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that after three days, he received toiletries and they assigned him to a cell. (Id. at PageID 5.) But he could not keep his new shoes. (Id.) He contends that Defendants would not allow him to have his shoes because he is white, but all black detainees could keep their shoes. (Id.)

         Plaintiff alleges that he asked a jailer named Hertado to transfer him to a different cell because his roommate was yelling and making racial comments at him. (Id. at PageID 6.) Plaintiff alleges that when he asked his cellmate to stop yelling and banging on the cell door, the cellmate punched him in his left ear causing him to bleed and fall to the floor. (Id.) Plaintiff called for help, and Hertado came to the cell, removed the cellmate, and took Plaintiff to see a nurse. (Id.)

         Plaintiff moved to a new cell but discovered that he was missing several items of property. (Id. at PageID 7.) He alleges that several jailers, including two named Hadley and Chaney, ignored his requests to retrieve his property. (Id.) Among Plaintiff's missing property was a log that he used to keep track of case details and important dates. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that unnamed jailers must have taken his log because no one else had access to it. (Id. at PageID 8.) Plaintiff alleges that once, a detainee ran into his cell and began to fight with his cellmate. (Id.) Chaney ordered Plaintiff's cellmate to clean up the blood left from the fight and allegedly warned Plaintiff, “[Y]ou better not say nothing to anyone about this white boy!” (Id.)

         Plaintiff alleges that he wrote grievances about these incidents but either received no response or Defendants told him that too much time had elapsed. (Id. at PageID 9-10.) He also alleges that Defendants wrongly disciplined him for the assault on his cellmate with fifteen days in administrative segregation. (Id. at PageID 9.) He alleges that unnamed jailers prohibited him from keeping most of his legal papers and letters. (Id. at PageID 10-11.) Plaintiff alleges that a jailer named Bass told him that the Jail was overcrowded. And, as a result, Plaintiff could only take four showers and had only two hours out of his cell over the first eleven days in segregation. (Id. at PageID 11-12.)

         Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court immediately releasing him from the Jail or from administrative segregation. He also wants the Court to Order the Defendants to place him in a single-person cell, to restore all his privileges, to return his property. (ECF No. 1 at PageID 3.) What is more, he wants punitive damages. (Id.)

         LEGAL STANDARDS

         I. Screening Requirements Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

         The Court must screen prisoner complaints and dismiss any complaint, or any portion of it, if the complaint-

(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 that relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         As to step one, in assessing whether the complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted, the Court applies the standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), as stated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-79 (2009), and in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). Under those standards, 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” because they are not “factual” and legal conclusions “must be supported by factual allegations.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Federal Rule also of Civil Procedure 8 also provides guidance on this issue.

         Even though Rule 8 only requires a complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ” it also requires factual allegations to make a “‘showing,' rather than a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.