United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah
GLENDON C. HARRISON JR. PLAINTIFF
DONNIE HALL DEFENDANT
B. Russell, Senior Judge United States District Court
a pro se civil rights action brought by a convicted
prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has
granted Plaintiff Glendon C. Harrison Jr. leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. This matter is before the Court
for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the
reasons set forth below, this action will be dismissed.
is incarcerated at the Ballard County Detention Center
(BCDC). He sues BCDC Jailer Donnie Hall in his official
Plaintiff states as follows in the “Statement of
Claims” section of the complaint:
The jailer or jail administrator shall provide adult
prisoners with a nutritionally adequate diet containing at
least 2400 calories a day. Condiments shall not be included
Jail or jail administrator shall maintain accurate records of
all meals served. Jailer or jail personnel shall directly
supervise all food prepared within the jail.
Feb. 09, 2019 @ 12:00 p.m.
We was served burnt beans and burnt cake.
Feb. 09, 2019 @ 5:00 p.m. Was served burnt pizza . . . .
As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
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).
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