Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Hill v. Jones

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky

September 17, 2019

HAROLD HILL, Plaintiff,
v.
TOM JONES, DOUG THOMAS, and CPT. JOHNSON, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          JOSEPH M. HOOD SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings of Defendants Captain Tom Jones, Jailer Doug Thomas, and Captain Greg Johnson (“Defendants”). [DE 17]. These Defendants request the Court dismiss Plaintiff Harold Hill's (“Hill”) claims against them with prejudice. Having reviewed the Defendant's motion, and being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is, and hereby shall be, GRANTED.

         I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On August 28, 2018, Inmate Harold Hill filed the instant action, proceeding pro se, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [DE 1]. On September 19, 2018, the Court conducted its initial screening of Hill's Complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010).

         The Court summarized Hill's the allegations in Hill's pro se Complaint as follows:

Hill indicates that in September 2017 he was a pretrial detainee housed at the Madison County Detention Center (“MCDC”). He states that he had served as a police officer, and alleges that he advised MCDC Captain Tom Jones, MCDC Jailer Doug Thomas, and MCDC Captain “Johnson” that he was at risk from assault if he was placed in a cell with inmates that he had previously arrested. Hill alleges that those officers disregarded his concerns, resulting in an altercation with at least one such inmate which caused physical injury.

[DE 6 at 1, PageID #25; DE 1 at 2-3, PageID #2-3].

         As a result, Hill alleges that the Defendants violated his Eight Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by placing him in a cell with inmates he had arrested during his tenure as a police officer and by maintaining an overcrowded jail. [Id. at 2-4, PageID #2-4]. Hill further claims that the Defendants violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). [Id.]. As a result, Hill claims that he is entitled to damages in the amount of $500, 000.00 from each defendant, including Madison County. [Id. at 8, PageID #8].

         After screening, this Court concluded that the Defendants Jones, Thomas, and Johnson be “served with process to respond to the allegations in the complaint.” [DE 6 at 1, PageID #25]. The Court dismissed Hill's claims against Madison County and the Madison County Detention Center (“MCDC”), finding the MCDC could not be sued and that the Hill's Complaint failed to state a claim against Madison County because it does not allege that the officers acted pursuant to any policy or custom of Madison County. [Id. at 2, PageID #26]. As a result, Jones, Thomas, and Johnson, filed their Answer on October 9, 2018. [DE 9].

         On March 4, 2019, Hill filed a motion styled, “Motion for Discovery and for Leave to Amend the Complaint.” [DE 15]. In particular, Hill's motion sought to add claims and parties. On March 25, 2019, Jones, Thomas, and Johnson responded in opposition to Hill's motion. [DE 18].

         They also filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. [DE 17]. Hill failed to respond to that motion. The Defendants then moved to hold all deadlines in abeyance, pending the outcome of the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. [DE 18].

         The Motion to Amend was referred to Magistrate Judge Matthew A. Stinnett, who ultimately granted Hill's motion to the extent it requested leave to amend the Complaint. [DE 20 at 5, PageID #122]. As a result, Hill was given until August 25, 2019 to file an Amended Complaint, and the Court held all other deadlines in abeyance pending this Court's resolution of the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. [Id.].

         Notably, Magistrate Judge Stinnett stated that, “[i]f Hill files an Amended Complaint, the pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings will be mooted.” [DE 20 at 4, PageID #121].

         Hill failed to respond to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and has also failed to file an Amended Complaint. As a ...


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.