Darrell Wingo v. Tennessee Department of Corrections
499 F. App'x 453
6th Cir.2012Background
- Wingo, a pro se Tennessee prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking monetary damages against the Tennessee Department of Correction, Assistant Commissioner Hodge, Northwest Correctional Complex, Warden Parker, five correctional officers, TRICOR, and two TRICOR supervisors.
- Wingo alleged harassment and derogatory language by Rex Edmondson, retaliation via a cell search after complaints, and intimidating conduct by other officers.
- Wingo claimed supervisory failure to enforce policies against harassment, verbal abuse, and retaliation.
- The district court dismissed the action as frivolous or for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b) and denied relief from judgment under Rule 60(b).
- On appeal, Wingo challenged the dismissal; the court held that the appeal regarding Rule 60(b) was precluded for failure to amend the notice, and that the complaint failed to state plausible § 1983 claims against the named defendants.
- The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly dismissed for failure to state a claim | Wingo | Court | Dismissal upheld; no plausible claim. |
| Whether Eleventh Amendment immunity bars claims against the Department and prison | Wingo | Agency immune from damages | Barred by Eleventh Amendment. |
| Whether supervisory liability supports a claim against Parker and Hodge | Parker and Hodge inadequately alleged | Respondeat superior controls; no personal involvement | No supervisory liability shown. |
| Whether Mills, Ray, and TRICOR had adequate factual allegations of participation | Defendants failed to act or enforce policies | No specific acts alleged by these defendants | Insufficient factual allegations to state a claim. |
| Whether verbal harassment or retaliation states a § 1983 claim | Harassment and retaliation violated rights | Verbal harassment and stare do not state a constitutional violation | Not a cognizable § 1983 claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 2010) (screening and plausibility standard for § 1983 claims; sua sponte dismissal.)
- Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2008) (requirements for sua sponte dismissal; frivolous claims.)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading factual content.)
- Dunn v. State of Tennessee, 697 F.2d 121 (6th Cir. 1982) (supervisory liability requires personal involvement or acquiescence.)
- Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416 (6th Cir. 1984) (supervisory liability—no liability absent personal involvement/acquiescence.)
- Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981) (no vicarious liability for supervisors in § 1983 actions.)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) (official-capacity/sovereign immunity framework.)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (sovereign immunity and waivers by states.)
- Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1999) (retaliation claims require factual support; conclusory allegations insufficient.)