United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Columbia Division
WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Jeramy Dwayne Buttram, then an inmate at the Marshall County
Jail in Lewisburg, Tennessee,  filed this pro se civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sheriff Billy
Lamb, Administrator Sabrina Patterson, and Shift Leader
Kendra Burton. (Doc. No. 1 at 2-3). Plaintiff also filed an
application to proceed in this Court without prepaying fees
and costs. (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).
Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application (Doc. No. 1 at
12; Doc. No. 2) reflects that he cannot pay the full filing
fee in advance. Accordingly, Plaintiff's application
(Doc. No. 2) will be granted. The $350.00 filing fee will be
assessed as directed in the accompanying Order. 28 U.S.C.
the screening requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform
Act (“PLRA”), the Court must 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 from an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 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)).
alleges that he was a pretrial detainee at the Marshall
County Jail during the events giving rise to his claims.
(Doc. No. 1 at 4). In early June 2019, Plaintiff alleges, he
raised concerns regarding his mail by talking to
Administrator Sabrina Patterson and sending a grievance to
Sheriff Billy Lamb. (Id. at 5). The grievance is
attached to the complaint. (Id. at 13). In it,
Plaintiff states that he did not receive expected mail for
about three weeks, and that “[i]t seems like”
Shift Leader Kendra Burton's crew did not want Plaintiff
“or anyone to get mail.” (Id.).
Plaintiff states that Burton had something against him, but
he does not know what it is. (Id.). After Plaintiff
filed the grievance, someone found Plaintiff's mail
“hidden in [a] desk drawer.” (Id. at 7).
also alleges that he told Administrator Patterson that Shift
Leader Burton “was telling people outside of the Jail
about” who was visiting him at the Jail, and what he
discussed during his jail visits. (Id. at 5).
Plaintiff alleges that his “family has been ridiculed
due to Kendra Burton's comments made to outside
Standard of Review
determine whether a complaint “fails to state a claim
on which relief may be granted” under the PLRA, 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 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,
prevail on a cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff
must prove ‘(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.'”
Winkler v. Madison Cty., 893 F.3d 877, 890 (6th Cir.
2018) (quoting Shadrick v. Hopkins Cty., 805 F.3d
724, 736 (6th Cir. 2015)).
Dismissal of ...