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.

Linton v. Louisville Ky Metro Dept of Correction Jail

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

May 8, 2019


          Plaintiff, pro se Defendants Jefferson County Attorney



         Plaintiff Delvonta Linton filed the instant pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action proceeding in forma pauperis. This matter is before the Court on initial review of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss some of Plaintiff's claims and give him an opportunity to amend his complaint.


         Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Louisville Metro Department of Corrections (LMDC), sues the following Defendants: “Louisville KY Metro Dept of Correction Jail”; “Staff et, al”; Kitchen, Maintenance Staff, et, al”; and Mark Bolton, the LMDC Director. Plaintiff sues Defendant Bolton in his individual and official capacities but does not indicate in which capacity he sues other Defendants.

         Plaintiff states that he and other inmates were “forced to eat dirty foods, served on dirty trays, violating my human rights civil rights and prisoner rights.” He asserts that he wrote grievances but that the jail failed to respond in five days, which Plaintiff states “violates its own policies, civil rights, human rights, prisoners rights.” He further states, “In the kitchen there is a roach infestation under the pallet by the dishwasher not to mention dishwasher is broke so all the trays are washed in trash cans without proper sanitation which violates all the health codes and food permit requirements.” Plaintiff further states that there is “black mold on the trays and in the tray storage area. Also holes in the trays that house insects and bugs that crawl on trays which are then served dirty and unsanitized to inmates . . . .” He asserts that inmates are “forced to eat off of trays served dailey with previous days food still on them, violating my human rights civil rights prisoner rights and constitutional rights.”

         Plaintiff continues, “Inmates are forced to keep quiet about the horrible condition of the kitchen. Not only myself but others have gotten sick multiple times. FBI and FDA have failed to investigate these matters.” Plaintiff also maintains, “Grievances are never answered and the jail is unsupervised after 4pm.”

         Plaintiff further states, “My human and constitutional rights to freedom of religion was violated as Christians are given their holy book for free. They are allowed to go to services without restrictions while Muslims and Jews are persecuted and forced to pay for their books and prayer rugs.” He asserts, “Also we are forced to be put on a list to attend any services and the list is handpicked and a wait is required. Ive been denied the right to participate in Jumar and other Islamic services” in violation of the First Amendment and “human and civil rights.” He maintains that he has been “treated unfairly because I'm Muslim also persecuted because I'm Muslim without anyone to report this too, as the jail makes it impossible to talk to anyone with authority to change things.”

         Plaintiff states, “Grievances are filed daily and unanswered. This is a violation of Constitution Rights to grieve.” He asserts, “We're held in unsafe cells with no fire sprinkler or fire evacuation plan. Which is an abomination to the rights and safety of inmates.”

         As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as expungement of his record.

         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 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 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).

         III. ...

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.