Stephens v. Warren County Jail et al, No. 4:2015cv00020 - Document 5 (E.D. Tenn. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION: As this lawsuit is duplicative to a pending lawsuit, this action will be DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. See Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. A separate judgment will enter.Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 5/4/2015. (aws, ) Mailed to Johnny Stephens.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Stephens v. Warren County Jail et al Doc. 5 U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF TEN N ESSEE AT W IN CH ESTER J OHNNY WADE STEPHENS, Plaintiff, v. WARREN COUNTY J AIL, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No.: 4:15-CV-20 -HSM-SKL MEMORAN D U M OPIN ION Before the Court is a pro se prisoners’ civil rights com plaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The com plaint was originally filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, which granted plaintiffs’ application for leave to proceed in form a pauperis and assessed the $ 350 .0 0 filing fee, but did not screen the plaintiffs’ com plaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) (Doc. 3). For the reasons stated below, however, process shall not issue and this action will be D ISMISSED . Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), district courts m ust screen prisoner com plaints and sua sponte dism iss those that are frivolous or m alicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or are against a defendant who is im m une. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915(A); Benson v. O'Brian, 179 F.3d 10 14 (6th Cir. 1999). Responding to a perceived deluge of frivolous lawsuits, and, in particular, frivolous prisoner suits, Congress directed the federal courts to review or "screen" certain com plaints sua sponte and to dism iss those that failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, that sought m onetary relief from a defendant im m une from such relief, or that were frivolous or m alicious. Id. at 10 15– 16 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A). The dism issal standard articulated by the Suprem e Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (20 0 9) Dockets.Justia.com and in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Tw om bly , 550 U.S. 554 (20 0 7) “governs dism issals for failure state a claim under [28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A] because the relevant statutory language tracks the language in Rule 12(b)(6).” Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 – 71 (6th Cir. 20 10 ). Thus, to survive an initial review under the PLRA, a com plaint “m ust contain sufficient factual m atter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Tw om bly , 550 U.S. at 570 ). In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff m ust establish that he was deprived of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law. Black v. Barberton Citizens Hosp., 134 F.3d 1265, 1267 (6th Cir. 1998); O’Brien v. City of Grand Rapids, 23 F.3d 990 , 995 (6th Cir. 1994); Russo v. City of Cincinnati, 953 F.2d 10 36, 10 42 (6th Cir. 1992); see also Braley v. City of Pontiac, 90 6 F.2d 220 , 223 (6th Cir. 1990 ) (stating that “Section 1983 does not itself create any constitutional rights; it creates a right of action for the vindication of constitutional guarantees found elsewhere”). Plaintiff’s com plaint was filed in the Middle District of Tennessee on April 9, 20 15, and transferred to this Court on April 21, 20 15. In his com plaint, plaintiff alleges that he told jail officials that he had a m edical need for a soft food diet upon his entry to the Warren County J ail on Septem ber 26, 20 14. When he was not provided a soft diet within the first four days he was incarcerated, plaintiff states that his jaw fractured, resulting in pain and swelling, and that he could no longer chew his food. Plaintiff further asserts that, despite m ultiple m edical requests and grievances, he did not receive a soft food diet at the jail for the next four m onths and that he was told by a nurse that he would not receive a soft food diet during this tim e. Plaintiff also states that when the jail finally did provide him with a soft food diet, plaintiff was starved by this diet due to 2 the foods provided and accordingly “gave up on the soft food tray” after an unspecified period of tim e. Plaintiff’s com plaint is for the first one hundred and twenty days of his incarceration, during which he alleges that he was served food that he could not eat. As relief, plaintiff requests to be given a soft food diet and $ 10 0 ,0 0 0 in damages for his pain and suffering. Plaintiff has sued the Warren County J ail, J ackie Mathany, Eddie Knowles, J ay Black, and Kristy Stargill. In his com plaint, plaintiff acknowledges that on Novem ber 13, 20 14, approxim ately five months before he filed the instant lawsuit, he filed a separate § 1983 civil rights lawsuit in the Middle District of Tennessee which involves the sam e facts or circum stances alleged in the instant lawsuit. This case, Civil Case No. 4:14-CV-78, was also transferred to this Court. The nam ed defendants in the previously-filed lawsuit include Warren County J ail, J ackie Mathany, Kristy Stargill, Eddie Knowles, David Florance, and Carol Darby. Upon close review of the earlier-filed com plaint and the com plaint in this case, it is clear that plaintiff has asserted the sam e claim regarding the lack of a soft food diet at the Warren County J ail on or about Septem ber 26, 20 14, and thereafter in both com plaints, and that both com plaints have nearly identical parties. While plaintiff m akes additional claim s in his earlier-filed com plaint that are not repeated in the instant com plaint, and he provides a few m ore details regarding his soft food diet claim in the instant com plaint than he did in the earlier-filed com plaint, it is clear that the soft food diet claim asserted in the instant lawsuit and the soft food diet claim asserted in the previously-filed lawsuit are substantively identical and arise out of the sam e facts. As such, the instant lawsuit is duplicative and subject to dism issal as frivolous under § 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Dorsey v. Met. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson 3 Cnty , No. 3:11-0 126, 20 11 WL 20 7 8520 , at *1 (M.D. Tenn. April 14, 20 11) (collecting cases). As this lawsuit is duplicative to a pending lawsuit, this action will be D ISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. See Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. A separate judgm ent will enter. SO ORD ERED . / s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._ _ _ _ _ _ _ HARRY S. MATTICE, J R. UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 4
]]>
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.
