Timmathy Moore v. Homes, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky conducts initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of a pro se prisoner’s § 1983 complaint. The court allows Eighth Amendment excessive-force claims against Sergeants Homes and Butlin in their individual capacities to proceed, while dismissing the remaining claims and defendants for failure to state a claim, immunity, or unavailable relief. The court directs the Clerk to terminate McCalstr, Vone, Luwrow, and Plaprd as parties and states that a separate service and scheduling order will issue.

Holdings

1. Moore adequately stated Eighth Amendment excessive-force claims for damages against Homes and Butlin in their individual capacities based on allegations that they slammed him and that Homes used chemical spray.
2. Claims for damages against state officials in their official capacities are not cognizable under § 1983 because the officials are not persons for purposes of such a claim and are protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.
3. A state prisoner may not obtain release from confinement or release from a restitution order through a § 1983 action when the requested relief challenges the fact or duration of confinement or its equivalent.
4. A prisoner has no constitutional right to an effective or unfettered prison grievance procedure; therefore, allegations that officials failed to submit, investigate, or respond to grievances do not state a § 1983 claim.
5. Verbal threats or harassment by prison officials, even when accompanied by brandishing OC spray or a taser, do not by themselves rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation.
6. Conclusory allegations and naked assertions without supporting material facts fail to state a plausible § 1983 claim.
7. A supervisor is not liable under § 1983 merely because of supervisory status, awareness of alleged misconduct, or failure to investigate, discipline, or remedy subordinate conduct; liability requires encouragement of the specific misconduct or direct participation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Moore stated an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Homes and Butlin.
2. Whether Moore's official-capacity claims for damages and injunctive relief were cognizable under § 1983.
3. Whether Moore stated claims based on threats, prison grievance handling, alleged misuse of state property, segregation conditions, failure to protect, denial of medical care, or supervisory inaction.
4. Whether Moore could obtain release from prison or release from a restitution order through § 1983.

Disposition

other