Scates v. Knox County Sheriff Office

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee
DecidedMay 17, 2023
Docket3:23-cv-00151
StatusUnknown

This text of Scates v. Knox County Sheriff Office (Scates v. Knox County Sheriff Office) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Scates v. Knox County Sheriff Office, (E.D. Tenn. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

TRAVIS D. SCATES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No.: 3:23-CV-151-DCLC-JEM v. ) ) KNOX COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, et ) al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff, a prisoner housed in the Knox County Detention Facility, is listed as a plaintiff on an unsigned amended complaint filed pro se by prisoners under 42 U.S.C. § 19831 [Doc. 3], and he has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 2]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s motion, DISMISS all named Defendants, and PERMIT Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. I. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS It appears from Plaintiff’s motion [Doc. 2] that he is unable to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this motion [Id.] will be GRANTED. As he is incarcerated, Plaintiff will be ASSESSED the $350.00 civil filing fee. The custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate trust account will be DIRECTED to submit to the Clerk, United States District Court, 800 Market Street, Suite 130, Knoxville, Tennessee, 37902 twenty percent (20%) of Plaintiff’s preceding monthly income (or income credited to his trust account for the

1 This civil action was severed from No. 3:23-cv-63-DCLC-JEM (E.D. Tenn.) after multiple plaintiffs were denied class action status and Plaintiff Scates thereafter indicated his desire to proceed in an individual § 1983 action [See Doc. 1]. preceding month), but only when such monthly income exceeds ten dollars ($10.00), until the full filing fee of three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00) as authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) has been paid to the Clerk. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). To ensure compliance with this fee-collection procedure, the Clerk will be DIRECTED to provide a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the custodian of inmate accounts at the

institution where Plaintiff is now confined and the Court’s financial deputy. This Order shall be placed in Plaintiff’s file and follow him if he is transferred to another correctional institution. II. SCREENING OF COMPLAINT A. Standard Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), district courts must screen prisoner complaints and shall, at any time, sua sponte dismiss any claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or are against a defendant who is immune. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Benson v. O’Brian, 179 F.3d 1014 (6th Cir. 1999). The dismissal standard that the Supreme Court set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) “governs dismissals for failure state a claim under [28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A] because the relevant statutory language tracks the language in Rule 12(b)(6).” Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). Thus, to survive an initial review under the PLRA, a complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Courts liberally construe pro se pleadings and hold them to a less stringent standard than lawyer-drafted pleadings. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even so, formulaic and conclusory recitations of the elements of a claim do not state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681. Likewise, an allegation that does not raise a plaintiff’s right to relief “above a speculative level” fails to state a plausible claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. B. Analysis “A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the Court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 3. Here, the Court does not have a § 1983 complaint signed by Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff’s

amended complaint, which is really only an amended list of Plaintiffs and Defendants, contravenes both Rules 8 and 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (providing pleading must contain “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” along with “a demand for the relief sought”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) (requiring every document to be signed by a party personally if the party is unrepresented). Further, Plaintiff must file a complaint that alleges the violation of his own constitutional rights; he may not premise his § 1983 action on factual allegations made by others. See, e.g., Newsom v. Norris, 88 F.2d 371, 381 (6th Cir.1989) (holding that a “a prisoner who initiates a civil action challenging certain conditions at a prison facility in his individual capacity is limited to asserting

alleged violations of his own constitutional rights and ... lacks standing to assert the constitutional rights of other prisoners”). Therefore, the Court will permit Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint to remedy these deficiencies. See LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013) (holding court may allow plaintiff to amend complaint even when complaint is subject to dismissal under the PLRA). Accordingly, Plaintiff will be permitted fourteen (14) days within which to file an amended complaint that contains a short and plain statement showing why he is entitled to relief. Plaintiff must make specific factual allegations of wrongdoing against identified Defendants, list any harm Plaintiff has suffered as a result, and include a specific request for relief. Plaintiff is NOTIFIED that this amended complaint will be the sole operative complaint that the Court considers, and therefore, it must be complete in and of itself and must not refer to any previously filed allegations or pleadings. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a § 1983 form for this purpose. Plaintiff is NOTIFIED that if he does not file an amended complaint by the deadline, the

Court will DISMISS his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which §1983 relief may be granted. Plaintiff is NOTIFIED that the Court WILL NOT consider any further amendments and/or supplements or any other kind of motion for relief until after the Court has screened the amended complaint pursuant to the PLRA, which the Court will do as soon as practicable. Accordingly, the Court will automatically deny any requests or motions filed before the Court has completed this screening. III.

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

Related

Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hill v. Lappin
630 F.3d 468 (Sixth Circuit, 2010)
Geoffrey Benson v. Greg O'Brian
179 F.3d 1014 (Sixth Circuit, 1999)
Wayne LaFountain v. Shirlee Harry
716 F.3d 944 (Sixth Circuit, 2013)
Whittel v. Roche
88 F.2d 366 (Ninth Circuit, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Scates v. Knox County Sheriff Office, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scates-v-knox-county-sheriff-office-tned-2023.