Gardner v. Fayette County Detention Center, No. 5:2023cv00029 - Document 11 (E.D. Ky. 2023)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER 1. To the extent that Gardner's civil rights complaint asserts claims against the Fayette County Detention Center itself, those claims 1 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 2. To the extent that Gardner is attempting to a ssert policy or custom-related claims against the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, those claims 1 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to his right to file a new civil action in which he more clearly asserts such claims. Appropriate forms need ed to file such an action are available upon request from the Clerk's Office. 3. This action is STRICKEN from the Court's docket. 4. The Court will enter a corresponding Judgment. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 3/3/2023.(STC)cc: COR, Glendrick Gardner via US Mail

Download PDF
Gardner v. Fayette County Detention Center Doc. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION LEXINGTON GLENDRICK GARDNER Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 5:23-029-KKC v. FAYETTE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant. *** *** *** *** Glendrick Gardner is a resident of Lexington, Kentucky. Proceeding without a lawyer, Gardner recently filed a complaint with this Court. [R. 1]. Gardner also completed and filed the Court’s approved E.D. Ky. 519 Form in order to seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis [R. 7], and the Court granted that request for pauper status [R. 9]. Therefore, Gardner’s pleading is now before this Court on initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court has fully reviewed Gardner’s complaint, including his various allegations regarding his medical situation and the recent conditions of his confinement. [See R. 1]. However, the Court will dismiss Gardner’s pleading because, as currently drafted, it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against the Fayette County Detention Center, the only named defendant. Simply put, the detention center is only a building and not a legal entity which may be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Marbry v. Corr. Med. Servs., 238 F.3d 422, 2000 WL 1720959, at *2 (6th Cir. 2000) (holding that the Shelby County Jail was not subject to suit under § 1983). Thus, the Court will dismiss Gardner’s claims against the detention center with prejudice. Dockets.Justia.com It is true that the Court could broadly construe Gardner’s complaint as alleging a claim against the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, the entity that runs and operates the Fayette County Detention Center. However, it is not clear that Gardner wants to proceed in this manner, and, even if he does, he is not currently complaining in any clear way about a specific municipal or county policy or custom, as required to state a claim. See Thomas v. City of Chattanooga, 398 F.3d 426, 429 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978)). To the extent that Gardner does want to assert policy or customrelated claims against the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, the Court will dismiss those claims without prejudice to his right to file a new civil action in which he more clearly asserts such claims. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. To the extent that Gardner’s civil rights complaint asserts claims against the Fayette County Detention Center itself, those claims [R. 1] are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 2. To the extent that Gardner is attempting to assert policy or custom-related claims against the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, those claims [R. 1] are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to his right to file a new civil action in which he more clearly asserts such claims. Appropriate forms needed to file such an action are available upon request from the Clerk’s Office. 3. This action is STRICKEN from the Court’s docket. 4. The Court will enter a corresponding Judgment. 2 This 3rd day of March, 2023. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.