United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Owensboro
H. McKinley, Jr., Chief Judge
Mark Leslie Hatfield, a pretrial detainee proceeding in
forma pauperis, filed the instant pro se
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (DN 1). The
complaint is presently before the Court for initial review
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, this action
will be dismissed.
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
names one Defendant in this action, the Daviess County
Detention Center Jail (DCDC). As relief, he seeks monetary
complaint, Plaintiff alleges as follows:
Here at Davies County Detention Center we are given the
ability to grieve any problems we have. However none of the
complaints are actually listened to none of the Davies County
Detention Officers here try to resolve the complaints they
just give us some type of Bullsh-- response on the kiosk and
that's it and they do not respond at all to the grievance
appeals which is denying me part of the grievance process
which is against my rights.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
prisoner initiates a civil action seeking redress from a
governmental entity, officer, or employee, the trial court
must review the complaint and dismiss the complaint, or any
portion of it, if it determines that the complaint 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. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A; McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 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, 90
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)).
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)). “But the district
court need not accept a ‘bare assertion of legal
conclusions.'” Tackett v. M & G Polymers,
USA, LLC, 561 F.3d at 488 (quoting Columbia Natural
Res., Inc. v. Tatum, 58 F.3d 1101, 1109 (6th Cir.
1995)). The court's duty “does not require [it] to
conjure up unpled allegations, ” McDonald v.
Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979), or to create a
claim for a plaintiff. Clark v. Nat l Travelers Life Ins.
Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975). To command
otherwise would require the district court “to explore
exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se
plaintiff, [and] would also transform the district court from
its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an
advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most
successful strategies for a party.” Beaudett v.
City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
42, Section 1983 creates no substantive rights, but merely
provides remedies for deprivations of rights established
elsewhere. As such, it has two basic requirements: (1) the
deprivation of federal statutory or constitutional rights by
(2) a person acting under color of state law. West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Flint v. Ky.
Dep't of Corr., 270 F.3d 340, 351 (6th Cir. 2001).
complains that Defendant does not try to resolve the
grievances filed by prisoners. He further states that
Defendant does not respond to grievance appeals. Plaintiff
claims that Defendant's failures have denied him his
do not possess a constitutional right to a prison grievance
procedure. Jones v. N.C. Prisoners' Labor Union,
433 U.S. 119, 138 (1977) (Burger, J., concurring) (“I
do not suggest that the [grievance] procedures are
constitutionally mandated.”); Young v. Gundy,
30 F. App'x 568, 569-70 (6th Cir. 2002) (“A
grievance appeal does not implicate the First Amendment right
of access to the courts because there is no inherent
constitutional right to an effective prison grievance
procedure.”); Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d
1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996) (finding that plaintiff's
allegation that the institution's grievance procedures
were inadequate to redress his grievances did not violate the
Due Process Clause and did not “give rise to a liberty
interest protected by the Due Process Clause”).
“All circuits to consider this issue have . . . found
that there is no constitutionally protected due process right
to unfettered access to prison grievance procedures.”
Walker v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., 128 F. App'x
441, 445 (6th Cir. 2005). Further, if the prison provides a
grievance process, violations of its procedures or its
ineffectiveness do not rise to the level of a federal
constitutional right. See Lee v. Mich. Parole Bd.,
104 F. App'x 490, 493 (6th Cir. 2004) (“Section
1983 liability may not be imposed simply because a defendant
denied an administrative grievance or failed to act based
upon information contained in a grievance."); Argue
v. Hofmeyer, 80 F.App'x 427, 430 (6th Cir. 2003)
(stating that "there is no inherent constitutional right
to an effective prison grievance procedure") (citing
cases); LaFlame v. Montgomery Cty. Sheriff's Dep
% 3 F.App'x 346, 348 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding that
plaintiffs allegation that jail staff ignored the grievances
he filed did not state a § 1983 claim "because
there is no inherent constitutional right to an effective
prison grievance procedure"); Overholtv. Unibase
Data Entry, Inc., No. 98-3302, 2000 WL 799760, at *3
(6th Cir. June 14, 2000) ("The defendants were not
obligated to 'properly' respond to Overholt's
grievances because there is no inherent constitutional right
to an effective prison grievance procedure.").
violation of a constitutional right is required in order to
obtain relief under § 1983, Plaintiffs claims regarding
the problems with the grievance procedures at DCDC fail to
state a claim upon which relief may be ...