United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GREG
N. STIVERS, JUDGE.
Plaintiff
Allen Wiley filed the instant pro se 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action proceeding in forma pauperis (DN
1). The complaint is now before the Court for initial
screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons
stated below, the Court will dismiss some claims and allow
other claims to proceed for further development.
I.
Plaintiff,
a convicted inmate at the Kentucky State Penitentiary (KSP),
names the following Defendants: the Kentucky Department of
Corrections (KDOC); KSP Warden Randy White; Grievance
Coordinator Dan Smith; Correctional Officers Terry Griffin,
Stephen Mitchell, J. Knight, Burnett, and Chase Byrum;
Sergeant Brendan Inglish; Lieutenant Jesse Combs; and
Sergeant Gage Rodriguez. He sues each of the individually
named Defendants in their individual and official capacities.
Where the form asks the filer to state how each Defendant
acted under color of state or local law, Plaintiff states,
“Deliberate indifference and intentional excessive use
of force.”
Plaintiff
alleges that on July 10, 2017, he was standing in a line
outside of 5 cellhouse waiting to be searched by corrections
officers. He states that Defendant Griffin walked up behind
him and “stated look at the f***ing ground and stop
looking at my f***ing officers.” Plaintiff continues as
follows:
I notice a cert team bat in officer Terry Griffin hand.
Officer Terry Griffin then grabbed me and pushed me up
against the concrete brick wall out side 5 cell house with a
cert team bat in his hand. Officer Chase Byrum walked up and
placed metal restraints excessively tight on my two wrists my
wrists and hands swelled up instantly. Then Officer Terry
Griffin and officer Stephen Mitchell Grabbed me by the back
of my neck and head and chicken wing me were head was all the
way down to my ankles and a baton was used on my shoulders to
raise my arms as high as they can go while cuffed behind my
back bent over. It was very hard difficult for me to walk in
that type of position. Upon being escorted to 3 cellhouse I
fell down on the concrete ground face first. While I was
laying on the concrete ground in full metal restraints with
my hands cuffed behind my back Sergeant Brendan Inglish
started twisting my ankle. Sergeant Brendan Inglish I quote
stated you are going to get the your f***ing ass up off the
f***ing ground and you are going to f***ing walk. At this
point my face arms two wrists hands knees legs were skinned
up really really bad. I tried to get up and walk and Officer
Terry Griffin and officer Stephen Mitchell again used the
baton on my shoulders to raise my arms high as they can go
while cuffed bent over. I fell down 3 times in this type of
position. On the 3rd fall I was laying down on the concrete
ground facce down in front of 3 cellhouse restrictive housing
unit when Brendan Inglish odered J. Knight to shoot me in the
lower back with a taser gun. After I was shot with the taser
gun in the lower back Officer Terry Griffin gave his baton to
one of the other officers and then grabbed me by my uniform
shirts and started pulling and dragging me across the
concrete ground on camera in front of 3 cellhouse restrictive
housing unit.
Plaintiff
maintains that the “force was applied in a bad faith
effort not to maintain or restore discipline[;] it was used
maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. The force used
was unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain ensued as they
intended needless harm.” He further states that the
Warden and KDOC “knew or reasonbly should have known
the illegal action of excessive use of force because it is
all on camera.”
In
addition, Plaintiff asserts that on August 13, 2017,
Defendants Coombs, Rodriguez, and Burnett walked up to his
cell door in 3 cellhouse and opened his food slot. According
to Plaintiff, they ordered him “to come and cuff up
cell search.” He states that when he walked to his cell
door, “Lieutenant Jesse Coombs pulled out his o.c
pepper spray and threaten to use force and spray me in my
face. I followed oders I was hand cuffed and stripped out.
For 3 days I was inside . . . my cell with no mat no shoes
socks clothes nothing.”
Where
the form requests the filer to state any injuries he
incurred, Plaintiff states, “My face knees legs two
wrist hands were skinned up really really bad. I received no
medical treatment for my injuries. And bruises on my
shoulders from baton.”
As
relief, he seeks compensatory and punitive damages and
injunctive relief in the form of “the Court's
protection that I not be retaliated against.”
In a
grievance attached to the complaint, Plaintiff describes the
above alleged incident of excessive force. In addition, he
states, “I was rejected medical treatment.” He
also states, “The two wardens Randy White and Steve
Ford authorized these officers to use unnecessary force with
leads to assults against inmates. Both wardens broke the law
when they authorized these unnecessary assults against
prisoners at K.S.P. institutional prison.”
II.
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 complaint, or any
portion of it, if the court 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. See §
1915A(b)(1), (2); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d
601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).
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)). “But the district court need not accept a
‘bare assertion of legal conclusions.'”
Tackett, 561 F.3d at 488 (quoting Columbia
Natural Res., Inc. v. Tatum, 58 F.3d 1101, 1109 (6th
Cir. 1995)). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and
...