Puckett v. Big Sandy Regional Detention Center, No. 7:2017cv00169 - Document 6 (E.D. Ky. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: 1. Puckett's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 3 is GRANTED and payment of filing and administrative fees is WAIVED. 2. Puckett's claims against Big Sandy Regional Detention Center 1 are DISMISSED with prejudice. 3. All other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 4. This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from Court's docket. 5. A corresponding judgment will be entered this date. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 11/14/2017. (RCB)cc: COR, Puckett via US mail
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Puckett v. Big Sandy Regional Detention Center Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION at PIKEVILLE LANCE DAVID PUCKETT, Civil Action No. 7:17-169-KKC Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BIG SANDY REGIONAL DETENTION CENTER, Defendant. *** *** *** *** Lance David Puckett is a resident of Salyersville, Kentucky. Proceeding without a lawyer, Puckett filed a complaint against the Big Sandy Regional Detention Center, a correctional facility operated by four counties in eastern Kentucky. [R. 1]. Puckett claims that, in November 2016, while he was incarcerated at the detention center, he “was forcibly sodomized by another inmate, [and] staff failed to prevent, intervene or provide treatment after [the] incident occurred.” [Id. at 4]. Puckett is seeking more than $75,000 in damages. [Id.]. Puckett also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. [R. 3]. The Court will grant Puckett’s fee motion because he lacks sufficient assets or income to pay the filing and administrative fees in this case. That said, the Court will dismiss Puckett’s complaint because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Puckett lists the Big Sandy Regional Detention Center as the only defendant in this action, and that facility is simply a building and not a person or 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 is not subject to suit under § 1983). Plus, even if the Court construes Puckett’s Dockets.Justia.com complaint as alleging claims against one of the counties that operates the detention center, Puckett is not complaining about a county policy or custom and, therefore, he fails to state a claim for relief against a county. 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)). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Puckett’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [R. 3] is GRANTED and payment of the filing and administrative fees is WAIVED. 2. Puckett’s claims against the Big Sandy Regional Detention Center [R. 1] are DISMISSED with prejudice. 3. All other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 4. This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court’s docket. 5. A corresponding judgment will be entered this date. Dated November 14, 2017. 2
]]>
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.
