Walls v. Tenn. Dep't of Corr., 17-2549-JPM-tmp
| Decision Date | 18 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 17-2549-JPM-tmp,17-2549-JPM-tmp |
| Parties | MAURICO WALLS Plaintiff, v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et.al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
On July 28, 2017, Plaintiff Maurico Walls ("Walls"), an inmate at the West Tennessee State Penitentiary ("WTSP"), in Henning, Tennessee, filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) On August 17, 2017, Walls filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 5). On August 25, 2017, the Court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assessed the civil filing fee pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)-(b). (ECF No. 7.) The Clerk shall record the Defendants as Tennessee Department of Correction ("TDOC"), WTSP,1 TDOC Commissioner Tony Parker and the following WTSP employees: Warden Jonathan Lebo, Former C/O Treveon Thompson, Former C/O Ms. First Name Unknown ("FNU") Carr, ATW FNU Fitz, Corporal ("Cpl.") C. Jones, IRC FNU DeBerry, STG FNU Gallaway, Sergeant ("Sgt.") FNU Parker, C/O FNUParker, Sgt. FNU Daniels, Disciplinary Board Sgt. FNU Chumley, C/O FNU Beavis, Cpl. FNU Pittman, Unit Manager FNU Hughes, and C/O A. Smith.2 On September 28, 2017, Walls filed an amendment to his complaint, amending the claims against individual defendants to name them in their individual capacities. (ECF No. 11.) Pursuant to the complaint and amended complaint, Defendants Jones and DeBerry are sued only in their official capacity, and the remaining defendants are sued only in their individual capacity and the remaining individual defendants are sued in both their official and individual capacity.
Walls alleges that on October 21, 2016, while "falsely imprisoned" in Unit 1 building at WTSP, he was assaulted, due in large part, to the actions of C/O's Carr and Thompson. (Compl. at 12, ECF No. 1.)
Walls contends that his assignment to Unit 1 was predicated on numerous false write-ups against him. (Id. at 21.) In May of 2016, Walls was moved from the SMU ("Special Management Unit") program and placed in maximum security for hitting C/O Thompson's girlfriend, C/O Austine who is not a party to this complaint. (Id.) Walls won his appeal of these accusations and was placed back in Unit 1, but several other disciplinary reports forced Walls back into maximum security. (Id. at 12.) Walls contends that in June 2016, he sent an appeal to Warden Lebo resulting in Walls's removal from super maximum security in August 2016, but that he was placed in Unit 6 maximum security due to negligence within the Unit 1 building. (Id.) On September 13, 2016, while Walls was in the SMU program, Warden Lebo spoke with Walls and then told the staff in Unit 6 not to place Walls into Unit 1 where C/O's Thompson andCarr worked. (Id.) Despite Warden's Lebo's request to his staff, Walls was assigned to the Unit 1 building. (Id.)
Because he was afraid for his safety in Unit 1 with C/O Thompson, Walls contacted the Rape Crisis hotline and spoke with Ana Wally, who informed Warden Lebo or Warden Lebo's staff about Walls's concerns. (Id.) Although STG Gallaway was sent to review the problem, he did not take any action to remove Walls from Unit 1. (Id.) On October 13, 2016, Walls was pulled into the hallway by Unit Manager Hughes and STG Gallaway during a discussion with other inmates. (Id. at 17.) After Walls returned to the room with the other inmates, Cpl. Jones and IRC DeBerry came into the pod and told all the inmates that Walls was a "Rat," which put Walls in fear for his life. (Id.)
On October 21, 2016, Walls was escorted to the recreation cages by C/O's Carr and Thompson. (Id. at 12-13.) While Walls was in handcuffs and shackles, C/O Thompson attempted to drag Walls to a recreation cage that was outside of the viconnect video system camera; however, Walls was able to wiggle to a cage that was in direct view of the camera. (Id. at 13.) After C/O Thompson removed Walls's restraints and locked the recreation cage, Walls contends that C/O Thompson, with retaliatory motive, put another inmate in Walls's cage for the purpose of harming Walls. (Id.) After Walls informed the other inmate that he would not fight him, the other inmate asked C/O Thompson to remove him from Walls's recreation cage. (Id.) When the other inmate was placed in his recreation cage a second time, Walls was forced to stand his ground and fight. (Id. at 14.)
Walls claims that when C/O Thompson tried to allow a second inmate, who worked in the laundry room, to enter Walls's recreation cage for the purpose of assaulting Walls, Walls was forced to pull his door closed to prevent a second assault. (Id.at 15.) This same "laundryworker" inmate was brought to Walls's cell door by Cpl. Jones and threatened Walls the day prior to the assault. (Id.)
As a result of the fight, Walls contends that he had a split eye, bruised knees, and a hurt neck. (Id. at 4.) Walls claims that pictures of his injuries were taken by WTSP staff, and then he was taken to medical where they provided treatment for his eye, knees, and neck. (Id.at 15.) When Walls was released from medical, a shift supervisor placed Walls in Unit 2 building, which is next to Unit 1. (Id.) After Walls called Ana Wally a second time, she informed the staff at WTSP about Walls's assault. (Id. at 16.) As a result of an investigation by internal affairs, C/O's Thompson and Carr were fired. (Id.) Walls contends that he informed ATW Fitz about the abuse; however, ATW Fitz did not attempt to fix the problem or inform his supervisors about the problem. (Id.) Walls claims that he continues to have neck pain and suffers from mental distress, emotional anguish, and paranoid behavior. (Id. at 18.)
Walls alleges that on December 13, 2016, Lt. Rogers, who is not a party to this complaint, retaliated against him by returning him to the Unit 1 building from medical. (Id. at 19.) Walls contends that on December 27, 2016, following his re-assignment to Unit 1, he refused breakfast and lunch served to him by C/O Smith because she had previously written "Enjoy" and a smiley face on his food. (Id.) Walls argues that Warden Lebo should be held accountable in his supervisorial capacity due for lack of disciplining C/O Smith. (Id. at 20.) Between December 27, 2016 and March 2017, Walls was forced into assignment in Unit 6, maximum security for his safety. (Id. at 22.) Walls contends he was then assigned to super maximum in retaliation and as part of a conspiracy by Sgt. Parker whose nephew, C/O Parker, is married to C/O Carr. (Id. at 22-23.)
Walls alleges that on February 1, 2017, he was assaulted by Sgt. Chumley, Sgt. Parker, C/O Parker (who is married to C/O Carr), and Sgt. Daniels in retaliation for the firing of C/O's Thompson and Carr and for the filing of this lawsuit. (Id. at 20.)
Walls seeks monetary compensation against the individual defendants. (Id. at 9-11.)
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
In assessing whether the complaint in this case states a claim as to which relief may be granted, the standards under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), as stated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-79 (2009), and in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007), are applied. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). "Accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true, the Court 'consider[s] the factual allegations in [the] complaint to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.'" Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681) (alteration in original). Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 n.3 ( ).
Hill, 630 F.3d at 470 (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 328-29 (1989)).
Whether a complaint is factually frivolous under §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) is a separate issue from whether it fails to state a claim for relief. Statutes allowing a complaint to be dismissed as frivolous give "judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327, 109 S. Ct. 1827 ( 28 U.S.C. § 1915). Unlike a dismissal for failure to state a claim, where a judge must accept all factual allegations as true, Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50, a judge does not have to accept "fantastic or delusional" factual allegations as true in prisoner complaints that are reviewed for frivolousness. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28, 109 S. Ct. 1827.
"Pro se complaints are to be held 'to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,' and should therefore be liberally construed." Willi...
To continue reading
Request your trial