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.

Crockett v. Davidson County Sheriff's Department

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

October 30, 2019

COREY CROCKETT, Plaintiff,
v.
DAVIDSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Aleta A. Trauger United States District Judge.

         Corey Crockett, an inmate at the Davidson County Sheriff's Office (“DCSO”) in Nashville, Tennessee, filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Davidson County Sheriff's Department and a DCSO employee identified as Mrs. Levy. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) He also filed an application to proceed in this court without prepaying fees and costs. (Doc. No. 2.)

         I. Application to Proceed as a Pauper

         The 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 the plaintiff's in forma pauperis application that he cannot pay the full filing fee in advance, his application (Doc. No. 2) will be granted.

         II. Initial Review

         Under the screening requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), the court must 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 also 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 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)).

         A. Factual Allegations

         The complaint addresses three separate instances of unconstitutional conduct-an alleged lack of due process related to a disciplinary hearing, an incident culminating in the alleged use of force by DCSO staff members, and the plaintiff's mental health treatment. The plaintiff requests monetary damages. (Doc. No. 1 at 4, 6-8.)

         1. Disciplinary Hearing

         At some point, the plaintiff received a write-up. (Doc. No. 1 at 4.) He alleges that a DCSO Lieutenant placed him on property restriction for 72 hours on April 8, 2019. (Doc. No. 1 at 4.) At that time, the Lieutenant stated that, “per policy, ” inmates must receive a written copy of charges against them regardless of whether they are on property restriction. (Id.) The plaintiff alleges that DCSO employee Mr. Huelsley dismissed his write-up that same day. (Id.)

         During the plaintiff's disciplinary hearing on May 6, 2019, Defendant Mrs. Levy allegedly refused to follow “policy [and] procedure.” (Id.) The plaintiff did not receive a copy of his charges, and Mrs. Levy apparently did not accept his explanation that the write-up had already been dismissed. (Id.) Mrs. Levy sentenced the plaintiff to “(2) 15 day lockdown consecutive.” (Id.)

         The plaintiff filed a grievance and a disciplinary appeal. (Id.) The plaintiff's appeal was rejected, as Sgt. Beach stated that the plaintiff “reviewed [his] write-up at [his] cell door.” (Id.) The plaintiff alleges that Beach was lying. (Id.) In fact, according to the plaintiff, he was in his cell “at least 30 mins after the incident” that caused the write-up, and neither Beach nor any other officer showed him any notice of charges at his cell. (Id. at 8.)

         The plaintiff's allegations regarding the grievance response are inconsistent. Initially, he alleges that the response, prepared by Beth Gentry, stated, “Mrs. Levy does not follow due process rules.” (Id. at 4.) Elsewhere, however, the plaintiff alleges that the response reflected that Mrs. Levy “had conducted herself accordingly.” (Id. at 8.) Gentry also allegedly responded that “Sgt. Beach did in fact ma[k]e sure [that the plaintiff had] seen [his] charges at [his] door.” (Id.) According to the plaintiff, Gentry should have checked the cameras in the plaintiff's pod to see if anyone came to his cell. (Id.)

         2. ...


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.