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.

Padgett v. Pain

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Owensboro Division

August 20, 2014

MICHAEL DEWAYNE PADGETT, Plaintiff,
v.
CHAD PAIN et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JOSEPH H. McKINLEY, Jr., Chief District Judge.

Plaintiff Michael Dewayne Padgett, a convicted inmate currently incarcerated at the Kentucky State Penitentiary, filed a pro se, in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining of events occurring during his detention at the Daviess County Detention Center (DCDC) (DN 1). After filing the complaint, Plaintiff filed a letter containing additional allegations (DN 6). The Court construes this letter as an amendment to the complaint. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to redocket the letter (DN 6) accordingly.

This matter is currently before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff's complaint and amendment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). For the reasons that follow, the Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Defendant Chad Pain in his individual capacity for damages will proceed; all other claims will be dismissed.

I. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS

Plaintiff brings suit against DCDC Corporal Chad Pain, Jailer David Osborne, [1] and Captain Kenneth H. Ehlschide. He sues Defendants Pain and Ehlschide in their individual and official capacities and sues Defendant Osborne in his official capacity only.

Plaintiff divides his statement of claims into three sections. First, he alleges that on February 9, 2014, Defendant Pain "willingly assaulted [him] in the Face with his Fist." He alleges that Defendant Ehlschide reviewed the video and that a copy of the video was given to the State Police and Daviess County Prosecutor.

Second, Plaintiff reports that on February 10, 2014, he was questioned by Defendant Ehlschide, non-defendant Major Billings, and Defendant Osborne. Plaintiff states that he told them about the assault and advised them that he "Refused to let this go without something done." He claims that Defendant Ehlschide "saw the swelling on my left cheek right Below my left eye, at This time Major Billing paused the camera and recording." Defendant Ehlschide then, according to Plaintiff, stated "who do you think the court will Believe? A High Ranked officer in the Jail or a Inmate with a History of Threats and assaults" to which Plaintiff replied, "The court will Find the truth.'"

Finally, Plaintiff states that he was refused "a 1983 Form, and phone calls with My Lawyer untill shipped to prison, on Thursday, Febuary 13th and Tuesday Febuary 11th."

In the amendment to the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the video and a written report show as follows:

I was secured in The emergency Restraint chair Before i was Assaulted By corporl Chad Pain. And Then Tased. This chair Includes Belly Strapes, Feet Straps and My Hands were handcuffed Behind by Back, I was Also Being held around my Neck/head were it was hard to Breath, which would and did retain me From any kind of Retaliation.

As relief in the complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary and punitive damages and release on parole.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Because Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking relief against governmental entities, officers, and/or employees, this Court must review the instant action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under § 1915A, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the court determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See § 1915A(b)(1), (2); McGore, 114 F.3d at 604.

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The trial court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory ...


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.