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.

Juliot v. Osborne

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

August 27, 2014

JOHNNY JULIOT et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
DAVID OSBORNE et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

Three prisoners-Johnny Juliot, Robert Baucom, and Donnie Bullock-filed the instant pro se, in forma pauperis civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the Court on initial review of the complaint 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 Court will dismiss the action.

I. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS

Plaintiff Juliot is currently incarcerated at the Kentucky State Reformatory; Plaintiff Baucom is currently incarcerated at Roederer Correctional Complex (RCC); and Plaintiff Bullock is currently incarcerated at the Green River Correctional Complex. The claims in the complaint, however, concern Plaintiffs' detention in the Daviess County Detention Center (DCDC). As Defendants, Plaintiffs name DCDC Jailer David Osborne and the detention center itself.

Plaintiffs allege that they have been subjected to "severe living conditions and unhealthy & unsanitary conditions, " about which Defendant Osborne is "fully aware" and continues to let occur. They allege the following conditions:

1) More than 9 State Inmate's sleeping on the Floor including Myself (Johnny Juliot), (Robert Baucom) & (Donnie Bullock) it's designed to be a 26 man dorm But there is Always's 35 to 36 inmates spread out All over the Dorm's, the living Conditions are Herendous. You Can't walk without Stepping on other Peoples Mats. Which is Very Unsanitary Not to Mention We are only provided with one Mat to lay on the Dirty Floor. There is NO "Boat" provided to keep our Mat's off the Floor, and When we ask for a Bed or Another Mat We are threaten By Staff to go to the Hole, Where You get No Mat.
2) There is "Black Mold" growing All over the Dorm We live in B-133, which Can Cause Serious Health Conditions Such as C.O.P.D or Even Cause Death in Some Circumstances When Being in Contact with the Black Mold For Long Periods of time. The only thing the Jailer Has done about this issue is Have Inmate's Scrub the Surfaces With Deluted Bleach. But within Day's the Mold Return's and it goes untreated By A proffesional Cleaning Service. It's a Very Serious Health Risk to Keep Inmate's Housed in these Serious Conditions.

In the complaint, Plaintiff Juliot reports being placed in DCDC on November 21, 2013, and the record in this action reveals that he was transferred to RCC four-and-a-half months later on April 9, 2014 (DN 16). Defendant Baucom reports arriving at DCDC on December 5, 2013, and the record reveals that he was transferred to RCC two-and-a-half months later on February 18, 2014 (DN 6). Finally, Defendant Bullock reports arriving at DCDC on November 1, 2013, and the record reveals that he was sent to RCC three months later on February 4, 2014 (DN 9).

As relief, Plaintiffs request $10 million in monetary and in punitive damages and an injunction "Correcting the issues at Hand."

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Because Plaintiffs are prisoners 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 or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327. In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

"[A] district court must (1) view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and (2) take all well-pleaded factual allegations as true." Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted)). "A pleading that offers labels and conclusions' or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.' Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ...


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.