Qualls v. Luttrell

Sixth Circuit

Qualls v. Luttrell

124 F. App'x 1002

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMarch 30, 2005

Docket04-5266

StatusUnpublished

This text of 124 F. App'x 1002 (Qualls v. Luttrell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Qualls v. Luttrell, 124 F. App'x 1002 (6th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MERRITT, Circuit Judge.

In this prisoner civil rights case for “deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s safety” brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the District Court dismissed the case because the prisoner, who is complaining of spiders in his cell, failed to file a proper grievance at any step in the grievance process. On appeal, the prisoner has dismissed all parties to this case other than Sheriff Luttrell and Director Ponte, who were sued in their official capacities only, and who the prisoner claims were deliberately indifferent to his welfare because they knew the Shelby County Jail had a serious spider problem.

The two remaining defendants, Luttrell and Ponte, are named only in their official capacities and not in their individual capacities. The suit seeks monetary damages and declaratory relief. As to the prisoner’s claim for monetary damages, sovereign immunity bars a § 1983 suit for monetary damages against a prison official in his official capacity. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989); Jarvis v. Marcum, 77 Fed.Appx. 308 (6th Cir.2003). That portion of the prisoner’s suit that seeks declaratory relief is now moot because the prisoner has been moved to another facility.

Therefore, the District Court did not err in dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

*1004 L

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MERRITT, Circuit Judge.

In this prisoner civil rights case for “deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s safety” brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the District Court dismissed the case because the prisoner, who is complaining of spiders in his cell, failed to file a proper grievance at any step in the grievance process. On appeal, the prisoner has dismissed all parties to this case other than Sheriff Luttrell and Director Ponte, who were sued in their official capacities only, and who the prisoner claims were deliberately indifferent to his welfare because they knew the Shelby County Jail had a serious spider problem.

The two remaining defendants, Luttrell and Ponte, are named only in their official capacities and not in their individual capacities. The suit seeks monetary damages and declaratory relief. As to the prisoner’s claim for monetary damages, sovereign immunity bars a § 1983 suit for monetary damages against a prison official in his official capacity. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989); Jarvis v. Marcum, 77 Fed.Appx. 308 (6th Cir.2003). That portion of the prisoner’s suit that seeks declaratory relief is now moot because the prisoner has been moved to another facility.

Therefore, the District Court did not err in dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

*1004 L

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 F. App'x 1002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/qualls-v-luttrell-ca6-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack