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.

Buttram v. Lamb

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

November 15, 2019

JERAMY DWAYNE BUTTRAM, Plaintiff,
v.
BILLY LAMB, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Jeramy Dwayne Buttram, then an inmate at the Marshall County Jail in Lewisburg, Tennessee, [1] 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).

         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). 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. § 1915(b)(1).

         II. INITIAL REVIEW

         Under 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)).

         A. Factual Allegations

         Plaintiff 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).

         Plaintiff 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 parties.” (Id.).

         B. Standard of Review

         To 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, 106 (1976)).

         C. Discussion

         “To 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)).

         1. Dismissal of ...


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.