United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Owensboro Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
H. McKinley Jr., Senior Judge United States District Court
Keith Jim Boyer, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.
This matter is before the Court for screening pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114
F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). For the following
reasons, the complaint will be dismissed in part and allowed
to continue in part.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
a pretrial detainee at the Daviess County Detention Center
(DCDC), sues DCDC. His first claim is for denial of
medication. He states that when he arrived at DCDC from a
prison in Ohio he brought with him "critically needed
medication[;] this medication must be taken daily due to
life/death situation." He further states that he brought
this medication "from out of town (already paid: by the
Ohio state prison. This medication was denied to me. (I am
being charged for medication under KY CARE)."
next claim pertains to overcrowded conditions at DCDC. He
states that there are 47 men housed in an 18-man cell with
only two toilets. He states that he sleeps on the floor and
at night cannot get to the restroom without stepping on other
inmates. He alleges that there should be
'"boats'" and sanitary living conditions.
He further states that "[f]ood sits outside window on
carts and served cold and not in timely manner on some
occasions." He also states that most meals are eaten on
the floor. As relief, he asks for monetary damages and
injunctive relief in the form of being released by DCDC.
filed a letter (DN 6) not long after he filed his complaint,
which the Court interprets to be an amended complaint.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A) ("A party may
amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: ... 21
days after serving it[.]"). He asks to add allegations
in "regard to PREA [Prison Rape Elimination Act]
conditions that take place in the protective custody cell
allegations in the amended complaint are that toilets are
only 24 inches apart with no dividers and that to take a
shower requires undressing in front of men using the toilet.
He states that it violates his privacy and his constitutional
rights to have to take a shower and use the restroom in a
cell that houses sex offenders.
At times, there are people exposing their genitals in the
dorm area to other inmates and doing sex acts in bed areas
and also the same activitys are taking place in the restroom
area and also the shower area. This is an everyday activity
that is taking place in B184 cell. It is mentally and
physically making me emotionaly distressed due to the sexual
misconduct and abuse that is taking place on a daily basis[.]
prisoner initiates a civil action seeking redress from a
governmental entity, officer, or employee, the trial court
must review the complaint and dismiss the action, if the
Court determines that it 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and (2). A
claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The Court may, therefore, dismiss a
claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Id. at 327. When determining
whether a plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can
be granted, the Court must construe the complaint in a light
most favorable to Plaintiff and accept all of the factual
allegations as true. Prater v. City of Burnside,
Ky., 289 F.3d 417, 424 (6th Cir. 2002). While a
reviewing court must liberally construe pro se
pleadings, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365
(1982) (per curiam), to avoid dismissal, a complaint must
include "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
the only named Defendant, is not an entity subject to suit
under § 1983. Matthews v. Jones, 35 F.3d 1046,
1049 (6th Cir. 1994). Rather, the claims against it are
against Daviess County as the real party in interest.
Id. ("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."); see also Smallwood v. Jefferson Cty.
Gov't, 743 F.Supp. 502, 503 (W.D. Ky. 1990) (finding
that suit against fiscal court is actually suit against
§ 1983 claim is made against a municipality, like
Daviess County, a court must analyze two distinct issues: (1)
whether the plaintiffs harm was caused by a constitutional
violation; and (2) if so, whether the municipality is
responsible for that violation. Collins v. City of Harker