Holmes v. Jackson Co. Sheriff Department et al, No. 2:2015cv00039 - Document 3 (M.D. Tenn. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 7/22/2015. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Holmes v. Jackson Co. Sheriff Department et al Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NORTHEASTERN DIVISION KURTIS HOLMES Plaintiff, v. JACKSON COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al. Defendants. ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] No. 2:15-0039 Chief Judge Sharp M E M O R A N D U M The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is an inmate at the Lawrence County Jail in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Jackson County Sheriff’s Department; Marty Hinson, Sheriff of Jackson County; and three members of the staff at the Jackson County Jail; seeking injunctive relief and damages. Prior to arriving at his present place of confinement, the plaintiff was an inmate at the Jackson County Jail. Contraband was found on the plaintiff’s person. Docket Entry No.1-1 at pg.1. As a consequence, the plaintiff was ordered to undergo a strip search. The plaintiff was taken into a room and the blinds were closed to insure privacy. The plaintiff was then made to strip off all his clothing. According to the complaint, Officer Bean, a defendant, then “got down on his knees in my front position and lifted up my fat on my stomach.” The plaintiff believes that by touching the fat Dockets.Justia.com on his stomach, Officer Bean committed a sexual battery. To state a claim for § 1983 relief, the plaintiff must plead and prove that the defendants, while acting under color of state law, deprived him of some right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981). Clearly, Officer Bean committed an unwanted touching of the plaintiff’s stomach. Further, it is well established that a sexual assault upon an inmate during a strip search is actionable under § 1983. Nevertheless, the plaintiff has not alleged conduct that can be described as a sexual assault. Having found contraband on the plaintiff, a strip search was fully justified under the circumstances. It has not been alleged that Officer Bean touched the plaintiff’s genitals. Nor has it been claimed that Officer Bean derived any sort of sexual gratification from the strip search. Therefore, taking all factual allegations as true, the plaintiff has nonetheless failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. When a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis has failed to state a claim for relief, the Court is obliged to dismiss his complaint sua sponte. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). An appropriate order will be entered. _______________________ Kevin H. Sharp Chief District Judge
]]>
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.
