Davis v. Chandler et al, No. 3:2008cv00430 - Document 6 (W.D. Ky. 2008)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 11/21/08; for the reasons set forth Plaintiff's official-capacity claims and individual-capacity claims will be dismissed. The Court will enter an Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.cc:Plaintiff, pro se,General Counsel, Justice & Public Safety Cabinet, Office of Legal Counsel (SC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE MOSE DAVIS PLAINTIFF v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:08CV-P430-S WARDEN LARRY CHANDLER et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court for screening of Plaintiff s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997). For the reasons that follow, the instant action will be dismissed. I. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS Plaintiff Mose Davis is an inmate in the Kentucky State Reformatory ( KSR ). He brings suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against KSR Warden Larry Chandler and KSR Physicians Mazen Khayat, M.D., and Steven White, M.D. He sues each Defendant in his individual and official capacities and seeks monetary damages in the amount of $5 million and punitive damages in the amount of $15 million. Factually, Plaintiff reports that he was transported to KSR on December 1, 2006, and placed in nursing care. On December 10, 2006, he was found in an unresponsive state. His blood pressure was unobtainable, his pulse was 24, and respirations were 4. Plaintiff reports that he was immediately transferred to the ER, via ambulance for further evaluation. According to Plaintiff, review of his MAR indicates that he did not recieve his DDAVP since 12/1 . . . . He also apparently did not recieve his Jantoven or Trental or Elavil at that time. Plaintiff advises that while in the emergency room, he was breathing at a very slow rate and was given an IV bolus of fluid to address his hypovolemia. Then, just as he was being prepared to be intubated, he regained consciousness and was admitted to the intensive care unit.1 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When a 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), (2); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997). 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 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. In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, [f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact). Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, -- U.S. -- , 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007) (internal citations omitted). [A] plaintiff s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Twombly, -- U.S. -- , 127 S. Ct. at 1964-65 (citations omitted; alteration in Twombly). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must construe the pleading in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998). 1 The facts in the complaint end there. In a subsequently filed letter (DN 4), however, Plaintiff reports that by them not giving me my medicine I suffered [a] Stroke. 2 Although this Court recognizes that pro se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991), [o]ur duty to be less stringent with pro se complaints does not require us to conjure up unpled allegations. McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979) (citation omitted). And this Court is not required to create a claim for Plaintiff. Clark v. Nat l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975). To command otherwise would require the Court to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, [and] would also transform the district court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). III. ANALYSIS A. Official-capacity claims The Court will dismiss the official capacity claims on two bases. First, Defendants, as state officials sued in their official capacities for damages, are absolutely immune from liability under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Will v. Mich. Dep t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985) ( This [Eleventh Amendment] bar remains in effect when State officials are sued for damages in their official capacity. ); Daleure v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 119 F. Supp. 2d 683, 687 (W.D. Ky. 2000) ( The Eleventh Amendment protects the Kentucky state government and the Kentucky Department of Corrections from suit. ). Second, none of the Defendants are persons subject to suit within the meaning of § 1983. Will, 491 U.S. at 71 (concluding that a state, its agencies, and its officials sued in their official capacities for monetary damages are not considered persons for 3 the purpose of a § 1983 claim); Matthews v. Jones, 35 F.3d 1046, 1049 (6th Cir. 1994) (same). Consequently, the § 1983 official capacity claims for damages against all Defendants will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and for seeking monetary relief from Defendants immune from such relief. B. Individual-capacity claims 1. Failure to state a claim In order to assert a cognizable § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege specific facts. Chapman v. City of Detroit, 808 F.2d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 1986). It is not enough for a complaint under § 1983 to contain mere conclusory allegations of unconstitutional conduct by persons acting under color of state law. Some factual basis for such claims must be set forth in the pleadings. Id. A complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory. Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 436 (6th Cir. 1988) (quoting Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 745 F.2d 1101, 1106 (7th Cir. 1984)). Allegations premised upon mere conclusions and opinions fail to state an adequate claim. Morgan v. Church s Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 1987); Hall v. United States, 704 F.2d 246, 251 (6th Cir. 1983) (finding that bare and conclusory allegations that a defendant personally deprived a plaintiff of constitutional or statutory rights are insufficient to state a cognizable claim). Furthermore, a complaint filed under § 1983 must show a causal connection between the named defendants and the alleged constitutional deprivation. A § 1983 complaint must allege that specific conduct by the defendants was the proximate cause of the constitutional injury. King v. Massarweh, 782 F.2d 825, 829 (9th Cir. 1986). Congress did not intend § 1983 liability 4 to attach where causation is absent. Deaton v. Montgomery County, Ohio, 989 F.2d 885, 889 (6th Cir. 1993). To establish causation, a plaintiff must adduce an affirmative link . . . [a] moving force that animated the behavior . . . that resulted in the constitutional violations alleged. Id. When the theory of causation is a matter of pure speculation and is nothing more than a hypothetical argument, the pleadings are insufficient to sustain a compensable § 1983 claim. Horn by Parks v. Madison County Fiscal Court, 22 F.3d 653, 659 (6th Cir. 1994). Here, aside from listing Chandler, Khayat, and White as Defendants in the caption, Plaintiff fails to mention them elsewhere in his complaint. To the extent that he may be seeking to hold those Defendants liable in their supervisory capacities, the doctrine of respondeat superior, or the right to control employees, does not apply in § 1983 actions to impute liability onto supervisors. Monell v. New York City Dep t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Taylor v. Mich. Dep t of Corr., 69 F.3d 76, 80-81 (6th Cir. 1995); Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416, 421 (6th Cir. 1984). Rather, to establish supervisory liability in a § 1983 action, [t]here must be a showing that the supervisor encouraged the specific incident of misconduct or in some other way directly participated in it. At a minimum, a § 1983 plaintiff must show that a supervisory official at least implicitly authorized, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of the offending subordinate. Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d at 421 (citing Hays v. Jefferson County, Ky., 668 F.2d 869, 872-74 (6th Cir. 1982)). As Plaintiff fails to allege any facts showing that Warden Chandler or Drs. Khayat or White encouraged any specific incidents or implicitly authorized, approved or knowingly acquiesced to any unconstitutional conduct, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against them. 5 2. Statute-of-limitations bar The statute of limitations for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions is governed by the limitations period for personal injury cases in the state in which the cause of action arose. Wallace v. Kato, -- U.S. --, 127 S. Ct. 1091, 1094 (2007). In Kentucky § 1983 actions are limited by the one-year statute of limitations found in KRS § 413.140(1)(a). Collard v. Ky. Bd. of Nursing, 896 F.2d 179, 182 (6th Cir. 1990). Although state law establishes the statute of limitations for § 1983 actions, federal law controls on the issue of when the statute of limitations begins to run. Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262, 272 (6th Cir. 1984). Federal law establishes that the § 1983 statute of limitations accrues when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury that forms the basis of the claim alleged in the complaint. Ruff v. Runyon, 258 F.3d 498, 500 (6th Cir. 2001). The Supreme Court has also recently held that when the face of the complaint shows that an action is time-barred, the case may be dismissed summarily upon screening. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 125, 127 S. Ct. 910, 920-21 (2007). In the instant case, Plaintiff s complaint details events occurring from December 1, 2006, when he was transported to KSR, through December 10, 2006, when he was taken to the emergency room and then placed in the intensive care unit upon regaining consciousness. Nothing in the complaint suggests that Plaintiff is complaining about events that occurred after December 2006, and, while Plaintiff was unconscious on one day (December 10, 2006), the complaint fails to demonstrate that, upon regaining consciousness, Plaintiff was unaware of what had happened at KSR since December 1, 2006. By not filing his complaint until over a yearand-a-half later in August 2008, Plaintiff s claims arising out of the December 2006 events are untimely. 6 The Court will enter an Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. Date: November 21, 2008 cc: Plaintiff, pro se General Counsel, Justice & Public Safety Cabinet, Office of Legal Counsel 4411.005 7
]]>
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.
