Source: http://ky.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190108_0000014.WKY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-03-29 18:56:20
Document Index: 389234259

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

FindACase™ | West v. Louisville Metro Dept. of Corrections
West v. Louisville Metro Dept. of Corrections
JEROME THOMAS WEST A/K/A PATRICK WAYNE WOKULICH PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff, Jerome Thomas West A/K/A Patrick Wayne Wokulich, filed the instant pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action proceeding in forma pauperis. This matter is before the Court on initial review of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's claim and give him an opportunity to amend his complaint.
Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Louisville Metro Department of Corrections (LMDC), sues LMDC as the sole Defendant. Plaintiff states as follows:
Since my incarceration on May 12, 2018, in [LMDC] I have been forced to go by an alias in their system (Patrick Wayne Wokulich) which is not my legal name. Due to this name discrepancy on medical releases sent to my physicians and/or pharmacies my medical and prescription medicine needs and requirements have not been adhered to properly causing other increased health issues that are not being properly addressed. I have many coronary, pulmonary, and neurological issues diagnosed by specialists in their field that have and are being neglected due to a lack of comunication between the facility and their medical staff with my outside physicians and pharmacy technicians in order to coordinate proper medical treatment and correct medication needs while my legal issues are being determined by due process in proper courts.
Plaintiff continues, “My health is deteriorating due to improper medical treatment and neglected needs based on the lack of communication with my health care specialists and family physician due to a forced identity issue by [LMDC] not acknowledging my legal name, Jerome Thomas West, as used in my daily life.”
Section 1983 creates a cause of action against any person who, under color of state law, causes the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. A claim under § 1983 must therefore allege two elements: (1) the deprivation of federal statutory or constitutional rights by (2) a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Flint v. Ky. Dep't of Corr., 270 F.3d 340, 351 (6th Cir. 2001). Absent either element, no § 1983 claim exists. Christy v. Randlett, 932 F.2d 502, 504 (6th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff sues only LMDC. However, LMDC is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983 because municipal departments, such as jails, are not suable under § 1983. Marbry v. Corr. Med. Servs., No. 99-6706, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 28072, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2000) (holding that a jail is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983). In this situation, Louisville Metro Government is the proper defendant. Smallwood v. Jefferson Cty. Gov't, 743 F.Supp. 502. 503 (W.D. Ky. 1990). Further, Louisville Metro Government is a “person” for purposes of § 1983. See Monell v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55 (1978). The Court therefore will construe the claim against LMDC as a claim brought against Louisville Metro Government.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;When a &sect; 1983 claim is made against a municipality, this Court must analyze two distinct issues: (1) whether Plaintiff&#39;s harm was caused by a constitutional violation; and (2) if so, whether the municipality is responsible for that violation. Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Tex., 503 U.S. 115, 120 (1992). To satisfy the second prong, a municipality cannot be held responsible for a constitutional deprivation unless there is a direct causal link between a municipal policy or custom and the alleged constitutional deprivation. Monell, 436 U.S. at 691; Deaton v. Montgomery Cty., Ohio, 989 F.2d 885, 889 (6th Cir. 1993). To demonstrate municipal liability, a plaintiff &ldquo;must (1) identify the municipal policy or custom, (2) connect the policy to the municipality, and (3) show that his particular injury was incurred due to execution of that policy.&rdquo; Alkire v. Irving, 330 F.3d 802, 815 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Garner v. Memphis Police Dep&#39;t, 8 F.3d 358, 364 (6th Cir. 1993)). The policy or custom “must be ...