United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
JAMES CALVIN MALLORY a.k.a. Saddiq Al-Rahman Muhammad PLAINTIFF
WARDEN AARON SMITH DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Charles R. Simpson III, Senior Judge.
James Calvin Mallory, a.k.a. Saddiq Al-Rahman Muhammad,
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. This matter is
before the Court for screening 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 following reasons,
the complaint will be dismissed in part and allowed to
continue in part.
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
is an inmate housed at the Kentucky State Reformatory in the
Corrections Psychiatric Treatment Unit (CPTU). He names as
Defendants Warden Aaron Smith, Deputy Warden Anna Valentine,
Deputy Warden James Coyne, Captain Joshua Schank, and
Commissioner Rodney Ballard. He sues each Defendant in his or
her individual and official capacities.
states that Defendants Smith, Valentine, Coyne, and Ballard
placed him in the CPTU on April 5, 2017. He states that in
the CPTU he has no access to his legal work and that he has
no sheets, socks, family photos, toothbrush, toothpaste, or
comb “in retaliation of racial profiling.” He
also states that his cell is dirty, with feces on the wall,
as well as blood on the wall and mattress.
alleges that Defendant Schank came to his cell and threatened
Plaintiff with “high power O.C. spray if I didn't
stop asking for my property legal.” According to
Plaintiff, Defendant Schank also told him that he would
“form a move team to come in my cell in beat me to
death.” He also alleges that on April 17, Defendant
Schank called him a “no good ratting nigger and if he
had his way they would beat me shitless.”
states that on April 5, 2017, all Defendants forced him to
shower in a shower with various bodily fluids in it and that
this practice has continued three times per week.
alleges that there is no reason that he should be housed in a
psychiatric ward around mentally ill patients who yell and
bang on their doors “24/7.”
further alleges that all Defendants have tampered with his
incoming and outgoing mail.
requests compensatory, punitive, and injunctive relief.
prisoner initiates a civil action seeking redress from a
governmental entity, officer, or employee, the trial court
must review the complaint and dismiss the action 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and (2). 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 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. When determining whether a
plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be
granted, the Court must construe the complaint in a light
most favorable to Plaintiff and accept all of the factual
allegations as true. Prater v. City of Burnside,
Ky., 289 F.3d 417, 424 (6th Cir. 2002). While a
reviewing court must liberally construe pro se
pleadings, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365
(1982) (per curiam), to avoid dismissal, a complaint must
include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
suits . . . ‘generally represent [ ] another way of
pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is
an agent.'” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S.
159, 166 (1985) (quoting Monell v. New York City
Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 n.55
(1978)). Because Defendants are employees of the Commonwealth
of Kentucky, the claims brought against them in their
official capacities are deemed claims against the
Commonwealth of Kentucky. See Kentucky v. Graham,
473 U.S. at 166. State officials sued in their official
capacities for money damages are not “persons”
subject to suit under § 1983. Will v. Mich.
Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).
Additionally, the Eleventh Amendment acts as a bar to claims
for monetary damages against these state-employee Defendants
in their ...