United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND GRANTING LEAVE TO
D. TODD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
November 14, 2019, Plaintiff Johnathan Dewayne Holt, who is
incarcerated at the Hardin County Correctional Facility
(HCCF) in Savannah, Tennessee, filed a pro se
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.)
After Holt submitted the necessary documents, the Court
issued an order granting leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and assessing the civil filing fee pursuant to
the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(a)-(b). (ECF No. 6.) The Clerk shall record
the Defendants as Hardin County Sheriff Johnny Alexander,
HCCF Jail Administrator Tracy White, HCCF Nurse Amanda
Hardin, and HCCF Doctor Nathan Kearse.
lists various issues at the HCCF and attributes those
problems to a set of Defendants without specifying what
actions they took related to the issues. (ECF No. 1 at PageID
2.) He first names Sheriff Alexander and Administrator White,
and next to their names, he states
No access to any kind of law library to fight case - No kind
of Grievance Procedure - State Facility No access to
Disinfectants - lots of Health Code violations such as Black
mold an[d] leaking toilets - NO chance to use regular phone
for a lawyer call.
(Id.) Holt alleges much the same regarding
Defendants Hardin and Kearse. Next to their first names, he
Nurse and Doctor that simply just ignores [sic] sick calls
and never shows to check on anyone[s'] concerns in jail[,
] simply no Health Care.
(Id.) Holt states that he is “not after
money.” (Id. at PageID 3.) Instead, he seeks
“the relief of all charges on me” following a
one-year term of unspecified rehabilitation. (Id.)
Holt states that he seeks to “change [his] life without
Court is required to screen prisoner complaints and to
dismiss any complaint, or any portion thereof, if the
(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
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also 28 U.S.C. §
assessing whether the complaint in this case states a claim
on which relief may be granted, the standards under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 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),
are applied. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71
(6th Cir. 2010). 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, ”
and legal conclusions “must be supported by factual
allegations.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Although
a complaint need only contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), Rule 8 nevertheless
requires factual allegations to make a
“‘showing,' rather than a blanket assertion,
of entitlement to relief.” Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 555 n.3.
se complaints are to be held ‘to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,' and
should therefore be liberally construed.”
Williams, 631 F.3d at 383 (quoting Martin v.
Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004)). Pro
se litigants, however, are not exempt from the
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989);
see also Brown v. Matauszak, 415 Fed.Appx. 608, 612,
613 (6th Cir. Jan. 31, 2011) (affirming dismissal of pro
se complaint for failure to comply with “unique
pleading requirements” and stating “a court