Robinson v. Bell County Detention Center, No. 6:2019cv00243 - Document 7 (E.D. Ky. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Jerry Dean Robinson, a pretrial detainee being held at the Bell County Detention Center, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint. [Record No. 1 ] The Court previously granted Robinson's motion to pay the filin g fee in installments. [Record No. 6 ] The complaint is pending for initial screening. Following screening, the Court Will dismiss a complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks moneta ry relief against an immune defendant. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Robinson's complaint [Record No. 1 ] is DISMISSED and this action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 10/18/2019.(MM)cc: COR, pro se filer via US Mail
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Robinson v. Bell County Detention Center Doc. 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION (at London) JERRY DEAN ROBINSON, Plaintiff, V. BELL COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 6: 19-243-DCR MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER *** *** *** *** Jerry Dean Robinson, a pretrial detainee being held at the Bell County Detention Center, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint. [Record No. 1] The Court previously granted Robinson’s motion to pay the filing fee in installments. [Record No. 6] The complaint is pending for initial screening. See Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). Following screening, the Court Will dismiss a complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). For a variety of reasons, the Court will dismiss Robinson’s complaint. First, it fails to satisfy the general pleading standards of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires that a plaintiff to set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than 1- Dockets.Justia.com an unadorned the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Robinson alludes to a variety of allegations including a lack of mental healthcare, unsanitary living conditions, poor food, and an insufficient grievance process. [Record No. 1 at 2, 4, 8.] But the broad allegations are wholly unsupported by dates, names, or other details that would demonstrate an entitlement to relief. While the Court construes pro se pleadings with some leniency, “liberal construction does not require a court to conjure allegations on a litigant’s behalf.” Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Erwin v. Edwards, 22 F. App’x 579, 580 (6th Cir. 2001)). Overall, Robinson’s allegations are too threadbare to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Next, the only identified defendant to the complaint is the Bell County Detention Center. [Record 1 at 1] A county jail or detention center is not a suable entitle apart from the county that operates the facility. See, e.g., Watson v. Gill, 40 F. App’x 88, 89 (6th Cir. 2002); Marbry v. Corr. Med. Serv., 238 F.3d 422, 2000 WL 1720959, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2000). And even if the Court construed Robinson’s claims as ones against Bell County rather than the detention center, dismissal would be appropriate. “To prevail in a § 1983 claim against a municipality, a plaintiff must show that the alleged federal right violation occurred because of a municipal policy or custom.” Thomas v. City of Chattanooga, 398 F.3d 426, 429 (6th Cir. 2005). Here, Robinson does not allege that his claims are the product of a county policy or custom. [Record No. 1] Thus, his complaint does not state a viable § 1983 claim against Bell County. 2- In the end, Robinson’s broadly-phrased claims fall short of the Rule 8 pleading standards, and the complaint does not articulate a viable claim against the Bell County Detention Center or Bell County. Where a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the Prison Litigation Reform Act provides for dismissal on screening. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Robinson’s complaint [Record No. 1] is DISMISSED and this action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court’s docket. Dated: October 18, 2019. 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.
