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.

Williamson v. Bolton

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

January 3, 2019

KALLENTINO D. WILLIAMSON, SR., Plaintiff,
v.
MARK BOLTON et al., Defendants.

          Plaintiff, pro se Defendants Jefferson County Attorney

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Claria Boom, District Judge United States District Court

         Plaintiff Kallentino D. Williamson, Sr., filed the instant pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action proceeding in forma pauperis. 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 the action upon screening.

         I. SUMMARY OF FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

         Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Louisville Metro Department of Corrections (LMDC), sues the following Defendants: Mark Bolton, the Director of LMDC; Correct Care Solutions; “John Doe Physician, ” a physician at LMDC; “Jane Doe Nurse, ” a nurse at LMDC; and LMDC Corrections Officers Stallard and Barrera. He sues Defendants Bolton and Stallard in their official capacities only and sues Defendants John and Jane Doe and Barrera in both their individual and official capacities.

         Plaintiff states that when he arrived at LMDC on June 10, 2018, he was placed in a dorm with no mattress and had to sleep on the floor on a blanket for twelve hours. Plaintiff asserts that after twelve hours he was given a mattress for about two days. He states that around two days later he was moved to another dorm and “again placed on the floor of another over crowded dorm.” Plaintiff reports that after around eight days, he filed a grievance regarding the issue and about “being forced to wear dirty underwear and a dirty uniform[.]” He states that the response to his grievance was that jail overcrowding was non-grievable; that LMDC has no control over the number of inmates housed in the facility; and that there was a shortage of uniforms which was being addressed. Plaintiff asserts that LMDC does in fact have control over the jail population and points to a disparity between two different housing units as evidence of it.

         Plaintiff also states that he has been denied indigent status even though he met the standard for it. He asserts, “This denial caused pain and suffering because I had to shower without my feet covered on a mold and mildewed floor causing athlete's foot.”

         Plaintiff also states, “I have attempted to retrieve my property from Louisville CCC.” He reports that he has been given several different responses which contradict each other. He maintains that the property includes hygiene products and clothing items. He states, “Being denied my allowable property has added to my financial burden causing cruel and unusual punishment.”

         Plaintiff further maintains that he has attempted to get his “paperwork pertaining to my pretrial cases . . . .” He states that he was “denied this right by LMDC on 7/9/2018.”

         Plaintiff also states that he filed a grievance, “grieving the fact that I was denied medicine of which there was a history of me taking while at LMDC.” He states that he requested medication for acid reflux. According to Plaintiff, “I clearly stated that I was in pain and nothing was done about it, I was continually told by the nursing staff that I could not receive even a ‘tums' because there wasn't an order in the system.” He continues, “All the staff had to do was look up my medical history while at this jail and see that I should be receiving treatment for acid reflux.” He states that the “refusal to properly treat me and continually make me pay 8.00 over and over for the same issue amounts to deliberate indifference.”

         Plaintiff maintains, “In losing all these issues demonstrate a clear and persistent pattern of disregard for the protections granted me as a pretrial detainee . . . against cruel and unusual punishment.” He also states that he has repeatedly asked Defendants Stallard and Barerra for cleaning supplies to “get rid of mold and mildew in the shower.”

         As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.

         II. STANDARD

         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 ...


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.