United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Owensboro
H. MCKINLEY JR., DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff
Kelvin Keith Bell's pro se complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons that follow, the
Court will dismiss the instant action.
currently is a convicted prisoner incarcerated at the Hopkins
County Detention Center. He complains, however, about his
pretrial incarceration at the Daviess County Detention Center
(DCDC) and brings suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against DCDC Jailer Art Maglinger in his official capacity.
As his statement of claim, Plaintiff alleges as follows:
The month of October 2017, I was incarcerated in [DCDC] for a
misdemeanor driving on suspended license from McLean County.
I was placed in a cell B-133 following an altercation in
C-104 were I was jumped by 4 inmates. I was in a argument
with one person about the reasons behind the fight in C-104
and the person wanted to fight. As I was walking to the back
of the cell, I was blind-sided by another inmate. The guards
came in and took me out. I went to medical and they told me I
had to be taken to the hospital. I found out the top of my
nose was broke. I have a chipped tooth. I've been
suffering from PTSD. I have nightmares and I'm trying
hard to deal with the crowded areas while in jail. I
constantly watch my surroundings. I also believe my
6th amendment right have been violated. I was a
county inmate and got assaulted by a state inmate.
relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking relief against governmental
entities, officers, and/or employees, this Court must review
the instant action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under §
1915A, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss
the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the court
determines that it 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, 114
F.3d at 604.
is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). The trial court may, therefore, dismiss a
claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Id. at 327.
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)). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and
conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.' Nor does a
complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked
assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557).
was a pretrial detainee during the incident alleged in the
complaint. “[T]he overwhelming weight of
persuasive authority holds that unless the state has an
intent to punish, or at least displays an indifference toward
potential harm to an inmate, pre-trial detainees have no due
process right to be housed separately from sentenced
inmates.” Burciaga v. Cty. of Lenawee, 123
F.Supp.2d 1076, 1078 (E.D. Mich. 2000). Plaintiff alleges no
facts indicating that his housing assignment was made with an
intent to punish him or with deliberate indifference to his
regarding the alleged assault, the Eighth/Fourteenth
Amendment imposes a duty on corrections officers to take
reasonable measures “to protect prisoners from violence
at the hands of other prisoners.” Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (citation omitted).
However, not “every injury suffered by one prisoner at
the hands of another . . . translates into constitutional
liability for prison officials responsible for the
victim's safety.” Id. at 834. Rather, to
maintain an Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment claim based on a
failure to prevent harm, an inmate must prove both an
objective and subjective component. Id. With regard
to the objective component, the plaintiff “must show
that he [was] incarcerated under conditions posing a
substantial risk of serious harm.” Id. The
subjective component requires the plaintiff to prove that the
defendant acted with “deliberate indifference” to
that risk. Id. “Deliberate indifference is a
state of mind akin to criminal recklessness: the ...