NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Na me: 12a1025n.06
No. 10-5693
UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT
J AMES GI L BERT TU TTL E, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. CARROL L COUNTY DE TENTI ON CENTER; MI KE HUMPHREY, Jailer; HENSL EY, De puty , Def endants-A

ppellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE E ASTERN DI STRI CT OF KE NTUCKY

BEF ORE: GI L MAN, GI BB ONS, and ROGERS, Circuit J udg es.

PER CURI AM

. J ames Gilbert Tuttle appea ls the district court’s judgme nt dismiss ing his complaint, filed under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Tuttle filed a § 1983 complaint ag ainst the Carroll County Detention Center

in Carrollton, Kentucky , J ailer Mi ke Humphrey , and a fema le deputy identified only as “He nsley ,” alleg ing the following fac ts. Tuttle was arr ested on a parole violator war rant, and he was t ak en to the Carroll County Detention Center, wher e he was booked and patted down by Hensley

. During the pat down, Hensley “g rabbe d [Tutt le’s] privates and squeezed them rea lly hard.” Tuttle wrote to Humphrey to inform him of what happene d. Humphrey advised Tuttle to stop returning to jail. Tut t l e further alleg ed that his privac y and digni t y we re violated, and he soug ht monetary relief

. Upon initialNo. 10-5693

Tuttl e v. Carroll Cnty. Det. Ctr., et al.

scre ening , the district court dismiss ed the complaint, concludin g t h at Tuttle failed to adequately alleg e that his constitutional rig hts wer e violated or that he suffe red phy sical inju ry
. T h e court denied Tuttle’s motion for r econside ration.
On ap p ea l, Tuttle arg

ues that the alleg ations in his complaint wer e sufficie nt to state an Eig hth Amendment claim. We revie w de novo a district court’s dismiss al of a complaint for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be g rante d. Grinter v. Knight , 532 F.3d 567, 571-72 (6th Cir. 2008). We a cce pt a ll we ll-pleade d alleg ations as true and construe the complaint in the light most favor able to the plaintiff. Thomas v

. Eby , 481 F.3d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 2007). Fur ther, we liberally

const ru e al l ega t ions in pro se complaints. Id. To avoid dismiss al, the complaint must state a plausible claim for

relief

. Davis v. Prison He alth Servs. , 679 F.3d 433, 437- 38 (6th Cir. 2012). The Eig hth Amendment prohibits the unnece ss ar y an d wanton infliction of pain ag ainst prisoners. Griffin v. Hardrick , 604 F.3d 949, 953 (6th Cir. 2010). An Eig hth Amendment claim has b o t h an objective and a subjective component. Id. at 954. To deter mine whether the subjecti v e component is met, we consider whether forc e was applied in a g ood faith eff ort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm. W illiams v. Curtin , 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011). I n assessing the objectiv e co m p o n ent, we conduct a contextual inquiry to deter

mine whether the pain inflicted was “suff iciently serious

. ” Id. The extent of a prisoner’ s injury may sug g est whether the use of forc e could plausibly have been thought nece ssary in a particula

r situation and may also provide some indication of the amount of force ap p lied.
W ilkins v. Gaddy , 130 S. Ct . 1175, 1178 (2010).

-2-No. 10-5693

Tuttl e v. Carroll Cnty. Det. Ctr., et al. The distric t co u rt p roper ly dismiss ed Tuttle’s complaint beca use he failed to alleg e fac ts demonstrating that Hensley acte d maliciously or sadistically for the purpose of ca u s i n g h ar m
. Fur ther, Tuttle did not alleg e that he suffe red an injury that would support an infere nce that Hensley used an amount of forc e unnece ssary for a pat-down sear ch. His bare -bones alleg ation that the fema le deputy “

grabbed my privates and squeeze d them really hard ” (empha sis added) is simply too subjective and vag ue to state an Eig hth Amendment violation. I n W ilkins , the Sup re m e Court explained:
As we stated in Hudson , not “eve ry malevolent touch by a prison g uard g ives rise to a fede ral cause of action.” 503 U.S. at 9. “The Eig hth Amendment’s prohibition of ‘cr uel and unusual’ punishments nece ssa r il y e xc lu d e s f

r o m c o n s ti tu

ti o n al rec og nition d e mi n i mi s u ses of phy sical forc e, provided that the use of forc e is not of a sort repug nant to the conscie nce o f m an k ind.” Ibid. (some internal quotation marks omitted). An inmate who complains of a “push or shove” that cause s no discernible injury almost cer

tainly fails to state a valid excessive forc e claim. Ibid. (quoting Johnson v. G lick , 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 ( 2d Cir. 1973)). Id. The case s cited by the district court—in which analog ous claims involving contac t with g enitals during pat-down sear ches wer e dismiss ed—similarly support our conclusion that dis m i s s al i s
appropr iate in the prese nt case
. See Tuttl e v. Carroll Cnty. Det. Ctr. , No. 3:10-12-DCR, 2010 WL 2228347, at *1-2 (E .D. Ky . J une 2, 2010). A ccor dingly , we a ffirm the district c ourt’s judg ment.

-3-