White v. Madison County Jail

• Court: District Court, W.D. Tennessee
• Decided: January 22, 2021
• Docket: 1:21-cv-01014
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DIVISION

JOSHLYNN JONATHAN WHITE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) VS. ) No. 21-1014-JDT-cgc ) MADISON COUNTY JAIL, ET AL., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, CERTIFYING AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

On January 21, 2021, Plaintiff Joshlynn Jonathan White, who is presently incarcerated at the Madison County Criminal Justice Complex (CJC) in Jackson, Tennessee, filed a pro se civil complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 3.) The Court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assessed the civil filing fee pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)-(b). (ECF No. 4.) White sues the CJC and John Mehr, the Sheriff of Madison County. White alleges he sustained injuries on October 30, 2020, after slipping and falling as he was leaving the restroom/shower area. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) While lying on the floor after the fall, he noticed he had slipped in a puddle of water that had leaked from under the wall. (Id. at PageID 2.) White alleges several other inmates had previously complained about the same leak both verbally and via written grievances, asking CJC personnel to repair the problem. (Id.) Accordingly, he asserts the Defendants knew or should have known of the danger. (Id. at PageID 3.) As a result of the fall, White alleges he suffered “serious and possible permanent

injuries which [are] causing great back pain and . . . constant spine problems and mental anguish.” (Id.) He alleges the Defendants owed him a duty of reasonable care which was negligently breached. (Id. at PageID 3-4.) The Court is required to screen prisoner complaints and to dismiss any complaint, or any portion thereof, if the complaintC

(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 such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In 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 2 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.

“Pro 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 F.

App’x 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 cannot ‘create a claim which [a plaintiff] has not spelled out in his pleading’” (quoting Clark v. Nat’l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975))). It is not clear whether White’s allegations are intended only as a claim for

negligence under Tennessee law or whether he also intends to bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 The Court therefore will treat the complaint as raising both federal and state-law claims. Section 1983 provides: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable

1 White filed a separate, companion complaint along with the complaint in this case. That separate complaint was designated as a § 1983 action. 3 to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . .

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) a deprivation of rights secured by the “Constitution and laws” of the United States (2) committed by a defendant acting under color of state law. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 150 (1970). Under § 1983, White’s claims against the CJC and any claims against Defendant Mehr in his official capacity are considered claims against Madison County itself. Madison County, however, may be held liable only if White’s injuries were sustained pursuant to an unconstitutional custom or policy. See Monell v. Dep’t. of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 691-92 (1978). To demonstrate such municipal liability, a plaintiff “must (1) identify the

municipal policy or custom, (2) connect the policy to the municipality, and (3) show that his particular injury was incurred due to execution of that policy.” Alkire v. Irving, 330 F.3d 802, 815 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Garner v. Memphis Police Dep’t, 8 F.3d 358, 364 (6th Cir. 1993)). “[T]he touchstone of ‘official policy’ is designed ‘to distinguish acts of the municipality from acts of employees of the municipality, and thereby make clear that

municipal liability is limited to action for which the municipality is actually responsible.’” City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 138 (1988) (quoting Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 479-80 (1986) (emphasis in original)). White has not alleged that his injuries were due to a policy or custom of Madison County. Furthermore, White has no § 1983 claim against Defendant Mehr merely because

of his supervisory position as the Sheriff. Under § 1983, “[g]overnment officials may not 4 be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676; see also Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416, 421 (6th Cir. 1984). Thus, “a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official

defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. There must be a showing that the supervisor encouraged the specific incident of misconduct or in some other way directly participated in it. At a minimum, a § 1983 plaintiff must show that a supervisory official at least implicitly authorized, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of the offending subordinates.

Bellamy, 729 F.2d at 421 (citation omitted). A supervisory official, who is aware of the unconstitutional conduct of his subordinates, but fails to act, generally cannot be held liable in his individual capacity. Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567, 575-76 (6th Cir. 2008); Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725, 751 (6th Cir. 2006); Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999); Lillard v. Shelby Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 727-28 (6th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, a failure to take corrective action in response to an inmate grievance or complaint does not supply the necessary personal involvement for § 1983 liability. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609-10 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Ruling against a prisoner on an administrative complaint does not cause or contribute to the [constitutional] violation.”). The complaint in this case does not allege that Defendant Mehr, through his own actions, violated White’s rights.

5 White may be attempting to assert a claim under the Eighth Amendment.2 An Eighth Amendment claim consists of both objective and subjective components. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). To satisfy the objective component, a prisoner must

show that he “is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm,” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; see also Miller v. Calhoun Cnty., 408 F.3d 803, 812 (6th Cir. 2005), or that he has been deprived of the “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,” Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)); see also Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513, 525 (6th Cir. 2004).

The allegation that White was injured when he slipped and fell in water does not satisfy the objective component of an Eighth Amendment violation. As another district court in this circuit has explained: Federal courts have routinely held that wet and slippery prison floors, while potentially hazardous, do not amount to the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities. See, e.g., Reynolds v. Powell, 370 F.3d 1028, 1031 (10th Cir. 2004) (holding that “slippery floors constitute a daily risk faced by members of the public at large” and do not amount to cruel and unusual punishment); LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1457 (9th Cir. 1993) (finding that wet prison floors did not create a sufficiently serious condition to violate the Eighth Amendment, and noting that “slippery prison floors . . . do not state even an arguable claim for cruel and unusual punishment”); Denz v. Clearfield County, 712 F. Supp. 65, 66 (W.D. Pa. 1989) (finding no Eighth Amendment violation based on slippery floor in prison cell); Mitchell v. West Virginia, 554 F. Supp. 1215, 1216-17 (N.D. W. Va. 1983) (finding no Eighth Amendment violation based on slippery floor in prison dining hall).

2 As, presumably, a pretrial detainee at the CJC, White’s rights actually stem from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process rather than the Eighth Amendment, which applies to convicted prisoners. However, except in the excessive force context, prison conditions claims brought by detainees are analyzed in the same manner as those brought by convicted prisoners. 6 Stubl v. Baraga Maximum Corr. Facility, No. 2:08-CV-10, 2008 WL 4813403, at *6 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 30, 2008) (report and recommendation adopted by the district court); see also Ward v. Ky. State Reformatory, No. 3:09-CV-315-H, 2011 WL 2378172, at *5 (W.D. Ky. June 15, 2011) (“Federal courts have routinely held that slippery prison floors do not pose a substantial risk of serious harm to give rise to an Eighth Amendment violation.” (internal

quotation marks and citations omitted)); Mills v. C.C.A., No. 1:10-0015, 2010 WL 5155478, at *4 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 14, 2010) (“Courts have regularly held that slip and fall accidents do not give rise to federal causes of action.”) (report and recommendation), adopted, 2011 WL 13552 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 4, 2011). White’s allegations are insufficient to state a constitutional claim for failure to

protect him. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. White also has not alleged diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, so the Court does not have independent subject-matter jurisdiction over such state-law claims.

For the foregoing reasons, White’s complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim. The Sixth Circuit has held that a district court may allow a prisoner to amend his complaint to avoid a sua sponte dismissal under the PLRA. LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013); see also Brown v. R.I., 511 F. App’x 4, 5 (1st Cir. 2013) (per

curiam) (“Ordinarily, before dismissal for failure to state a claim is ordered, some form of 7 notice and an opportunity to cure the deficiencies in the complaint must be afforded.”). Leave to amend is not required where a deficiency cannot be cured. Curley v. Perry, 246 F.3d 1278, 1284 (10th Cir. 2001) (“We agree with the majority view that sua sponte

dismissal of a meritless complaint that cannot be salvaged by amendment comports with due process and does not infringe the right of access to the courts.”). In this case, the Court concludes that leave to amend is not warranted. In conclusion, the Court DISMISSES White’s § 1983 claims with prejudice in their entirety for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims brought under Tennessee law. Leave to amend is DENIED. It is CERTIFIED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a), that any appeal by White in this matter would not be taken in good faith. Leave to appeal in forma pauperis is therefore DENIED. White is assessed his first strike

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which shall take effect when judgment is entered. See Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763-64 (2015). The Clerk is directed to prepare a judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ James D. Todd JAMES D. TODD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE