UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA

ALFONZO MONTEL JOHNSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:24-CV-00101-JRG-SKL ) QUALITY CORRECTIONAL ) HEALTHCARE and HAMILTON ) COUNTY JAIL/H.C.S.O., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, an inmate of the Hamilton County Jail, has filed a pro se complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 [Doc. 2] and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 1]. The Court will address these filings in turn. I. FILING FEE It appears from Plaintiff’s financial documents [Doc. 1] that he cannot pay the filing fee in a lump sum. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Id.] is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ASSESSED the civil filing fee of $350.00. The custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate trust account is DIRECTED to submit to the Clerk, U.S. District Court, 900 Georgia Avenue, Suite 309, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402, as an initial partial payment, whichever is the greater of: (a) twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly deposits to Plaintiff’s inmate trust account; or (b) twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly balance in his inmate trust account for the six- month period preceding the filing of the complaint.

(b)(1)(A) and (B). Thereafter, the custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate trust account shall submit twenty percent (20%) of his preceding monthly income (or income credited to his trust account for the preceding month), but only when such monthly income exceeds ten dollars ($10.00), until the full filing fee of three hundred and fifty dollars ($350.00) has been paid to the Clerk.

(a), 1915(b)(2). To ensure compliance with this fee-collection procedure, the Clerk is DIRECTED to

provide a copy of this memorandum and order to the custodian of inmate accounts at the institution where Plaintiff is now confined and the Court’s financial deputy. This order shall be placed in Plaintiff’s prison file and follow him if he is transferred to another correctional institution. II. COMPLAINT A. Screening Standard Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), district courts must screen prisoner complaints and sua sponte dismiss any claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or are against a defendant who is immune. See, e.g.,

(e)(2)(B) and 1915(A); Benson v. O’Brian,

(6th Cir. 1999). The dismissal standard the Supreme Court set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007) “governs dismissals for failure state a claim under [

(e)(2)(B) and 1915A] because the relevant statutory language tracks the language in Rule 12(b)(6).” Hill v. Lappin,

, 470–71 (6th Cir. 2010). Thus, to survive a PLRA initial review, a complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal,

(quoting Twombly,

). Formulaic and conclusory recitations of the elements of a claim do not state a plausible claim for relief.

. Likewise, an allegation that does not raise a plaintiff’s right to relief “above a speculative level” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Twombly,

. However, courts liberally construe pro se pleadings and hold them to a less stringent standard than lawyer-drafted pleadings. Haines v. Kerner,

(1972). A claim for violation of

requires a plaintiff to establish that a person acting under color of state law deprived him of a federal right.

.

B. Analysis First, Plaintiff has named the “Hamilton County Detention Jail/H.C.S.O.” as a Defendant [Doc. 2 at 1, 3], but neither a county detention facility nor a sheriff’s office is an entity subject to suit under § 1983. See Anciani v. Davidson Cnty. Sheriff Office, No. 3:19-cv-169,

, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 28, 2019) (“It is well established that in Tennessee federal courts, a sheriff’s office or police department is not a ‘person’ subject to suit under

.” (citing Matthews v. Jones,

(6th Cir. 1994))); Cage v. Kent Cnty. Corr. Facility, No. 96-1167,

, at *1 (6th Cir. May 1, 1997) (“The district court also properly found that the jail facility named as a defendant was not an entity subject to suit under § 1983.”). Because Hamilton County is a suable entity under § 1983, however, the Court considers

Plaintiff’s allegations against “Hamilton County Detention Jail/H.C.S.O.” as against this municipality. Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to substitute Hamilton County as a Defendant in the place of “Hamilton County Detention Jail/H.C.S.O.”. As Plaintiff has alleged that various medical providers, jail officers, and/or jail officials have denied him medical care despite his repeated requests over approximately a year during his incarceration [Doc. 2 at 3–5], this action will proceed against Defendants Quality Correctional Health Care and Hamilton County. Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs.,

(1978); Braswell v. Corrections Corp. of America,

(6th Cir. 2011). III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above: 1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 1] is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff is ASSESSED the civil filing fee of $350.00;

3. The custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate trust account is DIRECTED to submit the filing fee to the Clerk in the manner set for above;

4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to provide a copy of this memorandum and order to the custodian of inmate accounts at the institution where Plaintiff is now confined and the Court’s financial deputy;

5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff service packets (a blank summons and USM 285 form) for Defendants;

6. Plaintiff is ORDERED to complete the service packets and return them to the Clerk’s Office within twenty (20) days of entry of this order;

7. At that time, the summonses will be signed and sealed by the Clerk and forwarded to the U.S. Marshal for service, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4;

8. Service on Defendants shall be made pursuant to Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 4.04(1) and (10) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, either by mail or personally if mail service is not effective;

9. Plaintiff is NOTIFIED that if he fails to timely return the completed service packets, this action will be dismissed without further notice;

10. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service. If any Defendant fails to timely respond to the complaint, it may result in entry of judgment by default against that Defendant; and

11. Plaintiff is ORDERED to immediately inform the Court and Defendants or their counsel of record of any address changes in writing. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.13, it is the duty of a pro se party to promptly notify the Clerk and the other parties to the proceedings of any change in his or her address, to monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently. E.D. Tenn. L.R. 83.13. Failure to provide a correct address to this Court within fourteen days of any change in address may result in the dismissal of this action. So ordered.

ENTER:

s/J. RONNIE GREER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE