United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green Division
DANIEL T.R. MARCUM PLAINTIFF
SGT. JAMIE GADDIS et al. DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
N. STIVERS, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
matter is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff
Daniel T.R. Marcum's pro se complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons that follow, the
Court will allow a Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claim
to proceed against Defendant Gaddis and dismiss all other
is a pretrial detainee at the Taylor County Detention Center
(TCDC). He brings suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against the following TCDC officers in their individual and
official capacities: Sgt. Jamie Gaddis, Jailer Hack Marcum,
and Cpt. Paul Wise. Plaintiff divides his claims into three
sections, which will be discussed below. As relief, Plaintiff
seeks monetary and punitive damages and for Defendants
“to be relieved of job duties, and not allowed to work
Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking relief against governmental
entities, officers, and/or employees, this Court must review
the instant action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under §
1915A, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss
the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, 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 § 1915A(b)(1), (2); McGore, 114
F.3d at 604.
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 trial 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.
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)). “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).
alleges that in March 2019, upon his arrival at TCDC, he was
cuffed and shackled. He claims that Defendant Gaddis
“drug me to intake room and planted his left elbow into
my right ear” and “continued until he broke the
cartlidge in my right ear.” The Court will allow this
Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claim to continue
against Defendant Gaddis in his individual capacity.
official-capacity claim, which is actually a claim against
Taylor County, will be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to
“(1) identify [a] municipal policy or custom, (2)
connect the policy to the municipality, and (3) show that his
particular injury was incurred due to execution of that
policy.” Alkire v. Irving, 330 F.3d 802, 815
(6th Cir. 2003) (citing Garner v. Memphis Police
Dep't, 8 F.3d 358, 364 (6th Cir. 1993)).
additionally alleges as follows:
I have been a resident of Taylor Co. Detention Center for 41
Days now. I havent been able to make a initial intake call. I
am repetitivly denied attorney calls, and was finally allowed
to order stamps after multiple grievences and 31 Days. I
finally had gotten Capt. Wise to understand ...