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.

Mallory v. Smith

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

August 11, 2017

JAMES CALVIN MALLORY a.k.a. Saddiq Al-Rahman Muhammad PLAINTIFF
v.
WARDEN AARON SMITH DEFENDANTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Charles R. Simpson III, Senior Judge.

         Plaintiff, 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.

         I. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS

         Plaintiff is an inmate housed at the Kentucky State Reformatory in the Corrections Psychiatric Treatment Unit (CPTU).[1] 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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.”

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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.”

         Plaintiff further alleges that all Defendants have tampered with his incoming and outgoing mail.

         Plaintiff requests compensatory, punitive, and injunctive relief.

         II. ANALYSIS

         When a 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).

         A. Official-capacity claims

         “Official-capacity 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 ...


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.