United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division, Covington
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
L. Bunning United States District Judge
Robert McDonald II is an inmate at the Kenton County
Detention Center (“KCDC”). McDonald has filed a
pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. (Doc. # 3). This matter is before the Court to
conduct the initial screening required by 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A.
alleges that since December 2018 he has made many requests to
receive his medicine and to be seen by a dentist and
psychiatrist, to no avail. McDonald contends that defendants
KCDC and Southern Health Partners have thus displayed
deliberate indifference to his health and wellbeing. (Doc. #
3 at 2, 4).
difficulty with McDonald's complaint is that he has not
named a viable defendant. KCDC is merely a building-it is not
a suable entity apart from the county that operates it.
See Matthews v. Jones, 35 F.3d 1046, 1049 (6th Cir.
1994) (“Since the Police Department is not an entity
which may be sued, Jefferson County is the proper party to
address the allegations of Matthews's complaint.”).
Even if the Court were to construe McDonald's claim as
one against Kenton County, he makes no allegation that the
events about which he complains are the product of a county
policy or custom, and he therefore fails to state a claim for
relief against the county. Thomas v. City of
Chattanooga, 398 F.3d 426, 429 (6th Cir. 2005).
Likewise, McDonald does not allege his difficulties in
receiving medical care are the result of a SHP policy.
Rouster v. Cty. of Saginaw, 749 F.3d 437, 446 (6th
Cir. 2014) (explaining that to hold a private corporation
liable under § 1983, a plaintiff must prove both that
there has been a constitutional violation and “that a
policy or custom” of the corporation “was the
moving force behind the deprivation” of constitutional
rights); Bright v. Gallia Cty., Ohio, 753 F.3d 639,
660 (6th Cir. 2014).
Court will therefore dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim against the named defendants. Watson v.
Gill, 40 Fed.Appx. 88, 89 (6th Cir. 2002). However, it
will do so to enable McDonald to file a new complaint that
identifies proper defendants, such as those persons directly
involved with his medical care at the jail, if he chooses.
The Court will also deny McDonald's motion to proceed
in forma pauperis as moot so that he will only incur
a filing fee if he decides to file a new complaint.
McDonald wishes to seek relief in this Court by filing a new
civil action, he may obtain a form Civil Rights Complaint
[EDKY Form 523] from the Clerk of the Court. McDonald is
advised that any new complaint must describe the facts of his
case, specifically identifying the people, dates, places, and
actions which are relevant to his claims, and explain what he
wants the Court to do.
files a new case, McDonald must pay the $350.00 filing fee
and the $50.00 administrative fee. Fed.R.Civ.P. 3; 28 U.S.C.
§ 1914. If McDonald cannot afford to pay the entire
filing fee, he may file a motion to pay it in installments
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. However, McDonald is advised
that Section 1915 does not permit him to avoid
paying the filing fee; rather, it simply permits him to file
a motion to pay the fee over time rather than paying the full
amount of the fee immediately upon filing his complaint. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b). If he wishes to file such a motion,
McDonald must have the Certificate of Inmate Account [EDKY
Form 523] certified by prison staff, complete the Affidavit
of Assets/In Forma Pauperis Application [Form AO-240], and
file both of them with the Court. The appropriate forms may
be obtained from the Clerk of the Court.
McDonald is advised that before he may file suit in court to
challenge an action or decision by jail officials, he must
complete, in its entirety, the inmate grievance process and
pursue all available appeals under KCDC's grievance
procedure. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). If an inmate files suit
before the prison grievance process is completed in its
entirety, the Court will dismiss the case without prejudice.
it is ORDERED that Anthony Robert
McDonald's Complaint (Doc. # 3) is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE and this matter is
STRICKEN from the Courts active docket.
 When testing the sufficiency of the
plaintiff's complaint, the Court affords it a forgiving
construction, accepting as true all non-conclusory factual
allegations and liberally construing its legal claims in the
plaintiff's favor. Davis v. Prison Health
Servs., 679 F.3d 433, 437-38 (6th Cir. 2012). A district
court must dismiss any claim that is frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
seeks monetary relief ...