United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
B. RUSSELL, SENIOR JUDGE
Allen Wiley filed the instant pro se 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action proceeding in forma pauperis.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' motion to
dismiss the action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (DN 21).
filed a motion for an extension of time to file a response to
the motion (DN 24) and later filed a response (DN 28). Upon
review, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for
extension of time (DN 24) is GRANTED.
reasons stated below, the motion to dismiss will be denied.
ALLEGATIONS WHICH SURVIVED INITIAL REVIEW
is a convicted inmate at the Kentucky State Penitentiary
(KSP). Upon initial screening of the complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114
F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds
by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007), the Court allowed
Plaintiff's excessive force claims to proceed against
Defendants Randy White, Terry Griffin, Stephen Mitchell, J.
Knight, Chase Byrum, and Brendan Inglish in their individual
capacities. In the complaint, 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
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.”
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.”
in a grievance attached to the complaint, Plaintiff describes
the above alleged incident of excessive force. He states,
“I was rejected medical treatment.” He also
asserts, “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.”
apply the same standard under § 1915A as they do when
addressing a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
Moniz v. Cox, 512 Fed.Appx. 495, 497 (6th Cir.
2013); Wilder v. Collins, No. 2:12-cv-0064, 2012
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64231, at *12-13 (S.D. Ohio May 8, 2012)
(“When a complaint is screened under § 1915A, it
is subjected to the same scrutiny as if a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim had been filed under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).”). As another district court
stated, “[A] motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is
almost never an appropriate response when the court has
already screened a prisoner complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b) and directed the defendant to respond.”
Moreno v. Beddome, No. CV 11-2333-PHX-DGC, 2012 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 107901, at *4 (D. Ariz. Aug. 2, 2012).
both § 1915A and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), to survive
dismissal, “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]
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)). “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.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 556). The complaint need not contain “detailed
factual allegations, ” yet must provide “more
than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555). In addition, “[a] pro se complaint,
however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). With
the foregoing in mind, the Court will address the merits of
the instant motion.