United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
M. HOOD SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
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,
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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).
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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.
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].
failed to respond to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
and has also failed to file an Amended Complaint. As a