Lewis v. Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Corrections, No. 3:2015cv01489 - Document 3 (M.D. Tenn. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 12/15/15. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lewis v. Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Corrections Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION WILLIAM LEE LEWIS Plaintiff, ] ] ] v. ] ] DERRICK SCHOFIELD, COMMISSIONER ] OF THE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ] CORRECTION ] Defendant. ] No. 3:15-1489 Judge Campbell M E M O R A N D U M The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is an inmate at the Montgomery County Jail in Clarksville, Tennessee. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Derrick Schofield, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction, seeking injunctive relief and damages. Apparently, the plaintiff is a convicted felon being housed in a county penal facility. The plaintiff believes that his rights have been violated because he has not been accorded access to all those programs and opportunities available to convicted felons being housed in state penal facilities. The plaintiff can not sue the defendant solely because of his status as a supervisor or chief executive officer. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 will not support a claim posed on a respondeat superior theory of 1 Dockets.Justia.com liability. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). Where there is no allegation of participation, either directly or indirectly, by a supervisor in an allegedly wrongful act, the complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. See Dunn v. Tennessee, 697 F.2d 121, 128 (6th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1086 (1983). In this case, the defendant has no control over what programs and opportunities are being provided to state convicts being housed in the Montgomery County Jail. At best, the plaintiff is seeking to impose liability upon the defendant because he is ultimately responsible for all state prisoners. There has been no showing, though, that the defendant is even aware of the plaintiff’s situation. Personal liability “must be based on the actions of that defendant in the situation that the defendant faced, and not based on any problems caused by the errors of others.” Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F.2d 532, 535 (6th Cir.1991). Consequently, this action is subject to dismissal because the plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the defendant for which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). An appropriate order will be entered. ____________________________ Todd Campbell United States District Judge 2 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.
