Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Sapp v. Daviess County Detention CTR.

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Owensboro

November 8, 2018




         This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the Court for screening of Plaintiff's amended complaint (DN 7) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons set forth below, this action will be dismissed.


         Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on September 17, 2018, naming the Daviess County Detention Center (DCDC) as the only Defendant. In the complaint, Plaintiff made several serious allegations concerning his medical care and diet at DCDC. The Court conducted an initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A in a Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on October 3, 2018. In the Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against DCDC for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted but allowed Plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint to name as Defendants any individuals who allegedly violated his rights. The Court instructed Plaintiff that he should sue any newly named Defendants in their individual capacities and specifically describe how each Defendant has or continues to violate his constitutional rights, including such details as which Defendant purportedly did what and when. Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint, and it is that which is before the Court for review.


         Plaintiff indicates that he is a pretrial detainee at DCDC. He names four DCDC officials as Defendants - Major Jack Jones and three guards, Sean Longest, Thomas Payne, and Nick Tierney.[1] Plaintiff also names Chauncey Martin, another inmate at DCDC, as a Defendant in this action.

         In the amended complaint, Plaintiff first restates the allegations he set forth in his original complaint. He writes:

I wasn't receiving medical care or receiving inadequate medical care for the following symptoms, and or conditions, hearing loss, headaches, an ear infection, blood in urine, kidney infection, signs of kidney failure, significant weight loss, severe pain, and a broken tooth, and a bad back and spine troubles and sleeping on the floor. I also suffer from severe mental depression, and have the feeling of harmful reason to die, have been having bad chest pains. The jail is killing me slowly, and nothing I can do about it. I also make additional allegations concerning my diet.
Plaintiff then makes the following new allegations in his amended complaint:
I was assaulted by a state inmate, and I'm a county inmate. That was in the same cell. He is already in on violent charges, and is a violent inmate. And very dangerous, seek his records . . . on October 1, 2018, [the other inmate] assaulted me physically and brutally when I wasn't looking, punched me in the mouth, which I didn't NOT fight back and busted my mouth and broke out my tooth, and tore my lip in 3 places, and made my tooth go through my lip, which the jail nurse didn't give me anything but 2 ibuprofen, but I bleed for two days and should've went to the emergency room and got stitches in two places, but the jail wouldn't do it. The nurse tried to tape it up but didn't work, and til this day, they still haven't done anything about it, but looked at it, and rejected me anything for pain everytime. I still need to see a dentist, after 4 months also, on the other teeth needed to seen for. I been on the list. I asked to press charges and [Defendant] Jack Jones told me there in his office, I didn't have enough evidence. [Defendant] Sean Longest was a witness and the guard on duty and could testify on my behalf. I didn't fight back, because my injury was too severe. And I didn't do anything wrong.
As relief, Plaintiff seeks damages.


         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 ...

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.