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.

McDonald v. Springfield

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

July 28, 2018

JOHNNY A. McDONALD PLAINTIFF
v.
MICHAEL SPRINGFIELD et al. DEFENDANTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Thomas B. Russell, Senior Judge United States District Court

         Pro se Plaintiff Johnny A. McDonald filed a complaint (DN 1) regarding events occurring in the Kentucky State Penitentiary (KSP) in October 2017. The Court must perform an initial review of Plaintiff's 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). However, since filing his complaint, Plaintiff has filed a number of motions, which must be addressed before initial review.

         Allegations of the complaint

         The complaint names as Defendants the following KSP employees: Corrections Officers Michael Springfield, Michael Pillion, and Tammie Dornelle; Lt. Jared Thompson; Sergeant Brendan Inglish; and Warden Randy White. Plaintiff also names as a Defendant Deputy Commissioner James L. Erwin of the Kentucky Department of Corrections (KDOC). All Defendants are sued in their individual and official capacities.

         Plaintiff alleges that, while housed at KSP in 2013, Defendant Dornelle and other KSP employees were overheard “plotting to ‘kill' me and cover up my death like so many deaths has been done.” Apparently, Plaintiff was transferred away from KSP because of that threat. However, in October 2017, Plaintiff was returned to KSP, where Defendant Dornelle still works. Plaintiff states that he attempted to resolve the situation by talking to Defendant Dornelle, but she insisted that she would “‘finish what she started.'”

         Plaintiff alleges that on October 17, 2017, a random search of his cell signaled to Plaintiff that “it has begun, ‘meaning they were going to try to kill him.'” He asserts that Defendant Pillion noticed Plaintiff had dreadlocks during this search; that he and non-Defendant Unit Administrator Julie Roberts made Plaintiff pull out his dreadlocks; and that Defendant Pillion cut his hair. Plaintiff states that he is Native American and that it is against his religion and federal law to cut his hair.

Plaintiff alleges that on October 28, 2017:
5 European correction officers with the order of [Defendant] Dornelle (European woman) pull Plaintiff out of his cell[, ] beat him . . . sprayed OC … at Plaintiff twice . . . shocked Plaintiff with handcuffs and shacials on his feet twice with the electronic control device and twice with the shield then beat Plaintiff some more in a metal shower, then stripped Plaintiff out for three days with no running water and no mattress with paper boxers and eating on a rubber tray for three days and constantly tampering with Plaintiff's outgoing mail.

         He attaches several exhibits to his complaint.

         The complaint also refers to the constitutional right to be free from retaliation.

         As relief, Plaintiff requests monetary and punitive damages and injunctive relief in the form of being released on parole.

         Motion to amend the complaint (DN 7)

         In his motion titled “Motion of retaliation and further proof of mail being tampered with” (DN 7), which was docketed as a motion to supplement, Plaintiff asks the Court to view the attached documentation as further evidence of tampering with his mail in violation of the First Amendment. Attached is a copy of a KDOC Disciplinary Report Form which states that Lt. Mitchell, not a Defendant to this action, intercepted a letter being sent by Plaintiff to an inmate at another facility, which he found odd, and was told by STG Coordinator James Beavers, also a non-Defendant, that the letter was in fact gang-related. Plaintiff contends in his motion that no such letter existed.

         Because the date of the disciplinary report is January 24, 2018, i.e., before he filed the complaint in this case, it is not a motion to supplement the complaint but rather to amend it. Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter ...


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.