# Williams v. Davis

> District Court, W.D. Tennessee · February 9, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10440889

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** February 9, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10440889

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an officer’s “reprehensible” action of offering of sexual favors to the plaintiff-inmate did “not rise to the level of a constitutional violation”
- holding that even harassment that constitutes “shameful and utterly unprofessional behavior” is insufficient to constitute cruel and unusual punishment

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

TERRANCE WILLIAMS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) No. 2:21-cv-02113-JTF-atc
)
v. )
)
DERRIUS DAVIS, ET AL., )
)
Defendants. )
)

ORDER PARTIALLY DISMISSING THE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT WITHOUT
PREJUDICE (ECF NOS. 1 & 6);
GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND THE DISMISSED CLAIMS;
PROCEEDING THE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT’S EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIM
AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVIS AND STEWART;
AND DENYING PENDING MOTIONS (ECF NO. 7 & 8)

On February 25, 2021, Plaintiff Terrance Williams, who is incarcerated at the Shelby
County Criminal Justice Center (the “Jail”) in Memphis, Tennessee, filed a pro se complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1
& 2.)1 On April 14, 2021, the Court granted leave for Williams to proceed in forma pauperis.
(ECF No. 5.) On April 21, 2021, Williams filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 6.) On May
7, 2021, Williams filed a “Motion To Dismiss For State Misconduct” (ECF No. 7 (the “Motion To
Dismiss”)) and a “Motion to Suppress False Affidavit And/Or Motion To Dismiss Indictment For

1 Williams has other § 1983 proceedings pending before this Court. Williams v. Davis,
No. 20-2254-JTF-atc (W.D. Tenn.) at ECF No. 9 (proceeding Williams’s excessive force claim
against Defendants Echols, Davis, and Harrell for an August 23, 2019 incident at the Jail, and
dismissing the harassment claim); and Williams v. Weirich, No. 21-2741-SHM-tmp (W.D. Tenn.)
at ECF No. 1 (alleging obstruction of justice and malicious prosecution; awaiting the Court’s
screening under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, et seq. (the “PLRA”)).
State Misconduct” (ECF No. 8 (the “Motion To Suppress”)). Williams’s § 1983 complaints (ECF
Nos. 1 & 6) are before the Court for screening under the PLRA. Williams’s Motion To Dismiss
and Motion To Suppress (the “Motions”) are also before the Court for consideration.
Arising from certain July 19, 2020 events at the Jail, Williams’s initial complaint alleges
excessive force, verbal harassment, and inadequate prison grievance process against Defendants

Shelby County, Officer Derrius2 Davis, Officer Stewart, Officer Munphrey3, and Officer Elliott
(Davis, Stewart, Munphrey, and Elliott referred to as the “Officer Defendants”). (ECF No. 1 at
PageID 1-2; ECF No. 1-1 at PageID 4-8.) Williams sues the Officer Defendants in their official
and individual capacities. (ECF No. 1 at PageID 3.) Williams’s initial complaint seeks: (1)
“charges … against the [O]fficer Defendants; (2) injunctive relief; (3) $5 million from Shelby
County; and (4) $10,000 apiece from the Officer Defendants. (Id.) He also seeks an investigation
of Jail by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (the “FBI”). (ECF No. 1-1 at PageID 8.)
Williams’s amended complaint is a mirror image of his initial pleading, except for their
final page. (See ECF No. 6-1 at PageID 28; cf. ECF No. 1-1 at PageID 8.) After repeating the

factual allegations and legal claims of Williams’s initial pleading, the amended complaint corrects
the spelling of Officer Munphrey’s last name. (ECF No. 6-1 at PageID 28; see also ECF No. 4.)
Given that (1) both complaints allege identical facts and legal claims and (2) no Defendant has yet

2 Williams’s complaint in this case sues “Derrius Davis.” (ECF No. 1 at PageID 1-2.)
Williams’s complaint in No. 20-2254 sues “Darrius Davis.” (No. 20-2254, ECF No. 1 at PageID
1.) Both complaints identify Davis as a correctional officer at the Jail, see id., which suggests that
both cases sue the same person. However, each case arises from different facts on different dates.

3 On March 2, 2021, Williams submitted a correction to his complaint. (ECF No. 4 (the
correct name for “the officer referred to as Munchie … is D.R.T. Officer Munphrey not Munford”);
cf. ECF No. 1-1 at PageID 8 (“the officer referred to as ‘Munchie’[’s] real name is Officer Munford
of the D.R.T. unit”).)
2
been served with either version, the Court consolidates those filings as the operative pleading for
PLRA screening purposes. (See ECF Nos. 1 & 6 (the “Consolidated Complaint”).)
I. LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Screening Requirements
The Court is required to screen prisoner complaints and to dismiss any complaint, or any

portion thereof, if the complaint —
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
In assessing whether the complaint in this case states a claim on which relief may be
granted, the Court applies the standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), as stated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 677-79 (2009) and in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57
(2007). Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). The Court accepts a plaintiff’s
“well-pleaded” factual allegations as true and then determines whether the allegations “‘plausibly

suggest an entitlement to relief.’” Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011)
(quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681). Conclusory allegations “are not entitled to the assumption of
truth,” and legal conclusions “must be supported by factual allegations.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
Although a complaint need only contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), Rule 8 nevertheless requires factual allegations
to make a “‘showing,’ rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief.” Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 555 n.3.
“Pro se complaints are to be held ‘to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted
by lawyers,’ and should therefore be liberally construed.” Williams, 631 F.3d at

3
383 (quoting Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004)). Pro se litigants, however, are
not exempt from the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wells v. Brown, 891
F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989); see also Brown v. Matauszak, 415 F. App’x 608, 612, 613 (6th Cir.
Jan. 31, 2011) (affirming dismissal of pro se complaint for failure to comply with “unique pleading
requirements” and stating “a court cannot ‘create a claim which [a plaintiff] has not spelled out in

his pleading’” (quoting Clark v. Nat'l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir.
1975))).
B. Requirements To State A Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff filed his Consolidated Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of
Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the
United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action
at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress....

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) a deprivation of
rights secured by the “Constitution and laws” of the United States (2) committed by a defendant
acting under color of state law. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 150 (1970).
II. ANALYSIS
A. Claims Against Shelby County; Official Capacity Claims Against The Officer
Defendants

Williams names Shelby County as a Defendant. (ECF No. 6-1 at PageID 21-22.) To the
extent Williams sues the Officer Defendants in their official capacities (see id. at PageID 23),
those claims are treated as claims against their employer, Shelby County. See Jones v. Union
Cnty., Tenn., 296 F.3d 417, 421 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Matthews v. Jones, 35 F.3d 1046, 1049 (6th
Cir. 1994)).
4
Shelby County may be held liable only if Plaintiff’s injuries were sustained pursuant to an
unconstitutional custom or policy. See Monell v. Dep't. of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 691-92 (1978).
To demonstrate municipal liability, a plaintiff “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.” Alkire v. Irving, 330 F.3d 802, 815 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Garner v.

Memphis Police Dep't, 8 F.3d 358, 364 (6th Cir. 1993)). “[T]he touchstone of ‘official policy’ is
designed ‘to distinguish acts of the municipality from acts of employees of the municipality, and
thereby make clear that municipal liability is limited to action for which the municipality is actually
responsible.” City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 138 (1988) (quoting Pembaur v.
Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 479-80 (1986) (emphasis in original)).
Williams does not allege that he suffered a constitutional deprivation due to a Shelby
County policy or custom. (See ECF Nos. 6 & 6-1.) He instead seeks relief based on allegations
that the Officer Defendants attacked him based on their personal animosity for Williams. (ECF
No. 6-1 at PageID 27.) The Consolidated Complaint contends that the Officer Defendants

assaulted and threatened Williams because of his soured relationship with Davis’s sister. (ECF
No. 6-1 at PageID 24 & 26.) Williams does not allege facts demonstrating a Shelby County policy
or custom pursuant to which the Officer Defendants acted during the Incident.
The Consolidated Complaint does not state a cognizable claim against Shelby County or
against the Officer Defendants in their official capacities, and such claims are DISMISSED.
B. Excessive Force Claims Against Officer Defendants In Their Individual Capacity
During a July 19, 2020 lockdown at the Jail, Williams and his cellmate complied with
security directives, but other inmates “barricaded the doors.” (ECF No. 6-1 at PageID 24.) After
“the DRT sprayed chemical agents[,] released gas bombs[,] … [and] ordered everyone to get on

5
the ground,” Officer Davis enterer Williams’s cell and repeatedly sprayed his face. (Id. at PageID
24-25.) When Williams shielded his face from chemical agent, Davis again sprayed Williams and
kicked him in the face. (Id. at PageID 25.) Williams tried to slide back, but Davis kicked Plaintiff’s
face twice more and punched his head and neck. (Id.) Williams “pushed [Davis] off,” prompting
Officer Stewart to approach the area and hit Williams on the head with handcuffs. (Id.) Williams

fell backwards onto a table. Davis and Stewart then “proceeded to assault [Williams] together.”
(Id.) Officer Robertson then arrived on the scene and directed Davis and Stewart “to stop.” (Id.
(the foregoing events referred to as the “Incident”).)
Robertson handcuffed Williams and his cellmate together and seated them in the hallway,
where Officers Davis and Munphrey “repeatedly threatened” Williams. (Id.) Williams called for
assistance from Sergeant Matthews, who ordered Officer Elliott to escort Williams to the Jail’s
medical office. (Id.) As Elliott escorted Williams, he “harassed and threatened [Williams] all the
way [there].” (Id.)
At the medical office, Williams told the nurse that he “couldn’t move [his] mouth.” (Id.)

The nurse told Williams to rinse out his eyes, and she then discharged him. (Id.) Once back in his
cell, Williams told the on-duty sergeant of Plaintiff’s mouth pain. (Id.) The sergeant escorted
Williams back to the medical officer, where a different nurse dispensed pain medication and
advised that Williams needed x-rays. (Id.) The next day, Williams was taken to Regional One
Hospital, where doctors x-rayed him and diagnosed a dislocated jaw. (Id.) The doctors sedated
Williams, re-aligned his jaw, and gave him pain medication. (Id.) When Williams returned to the
Jail, “staff refused to give me my medication, assumably [sic] out of spite.” (Id.) At Williams’s
subsequent check-up at Regional One, doctors x-rayed him and said he “might have to have

6
surgery because my jaw bone was still out of line.” (Id.) Williams unsuccessfully grieved the
Incident. (Id. at PageID 27-28.)
The Court construes Williams’s allegations as claims for excessive force.
The Eighth Amendment protects a convicted inmate from cruel and unusual punishments,
including “the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1,

5 (1992) (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986)); Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294
(1991). The Eighth Amendment’s subjective standard takes into account a defendant’s state of
mind. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). Establishing an Eighth Amendment claim
of excessive force requires a showing that (1) “the alleged wrongdoing was objectively ‘harmful
enough’ to establish a constitutional violation,” and (2) “‘the officials act[ed] with a sufficiently
culpable state of mind.’” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8 (quoting Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298, 303). The “core
judicial inquiry” is “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore
discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Id. at 6 (citing Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320-
21).

Pretrial detainees’ protection against excessive force is provided by the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause. That provision protects a pretrial detainee in state custody
against the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment. Leary v. Livingston Cnty., 528 F.3d
438, 443 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n. 10 (1989). Pretrial
detainees’ excessive force claims must be analyzed under a Fourteenth Amendment standard of
objective reasonableness. In Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 76 U.S. 389, 397, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2472-
73, 192 L.Ed.2d 416 (2015) (rejecting a subjective standard that takes into account a defendant’s
state of mind in pretrial detainee cases). That objective standard “turns on the ‘facts and
circumstances of each particular case.’” Id. (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 396). The Court must

7
judge the reasonableness of a particular use of force “from the perspective of a reasonable officer
on the scene, including what the officer knew at the time, not with the 20/20 vision of
hindsight.” Id. Under an objective reasonableness inquiry, “the question is whether the officers’
actions are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without
regard to their underlying intent or motivation.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 397 (citations omitted). The

proper application of this standard requires consideration of the following factors:
the relationship between the need for the use of force and the amount of force used;
the extent of the plaintiff's injury; any effort made by the officer to temper or to
limit the amount of force; the severity of the security problem at issue; the threat
reasonably perceived by the officer; and whether the plaintiff was actively resisting.

Kingsley, 135 S. Ct. at 2473. This list is not exhaustive but illustrates some of the “objective
circumstances potentially relevant to a determination of excessive force.” Id.
The present record is silent as to whether Williams was a pretrial detainee or a convicted
prisoner as the time of the Incident. (See ECF Nos. 6 & 6-1.) However, even under the more
exacting subjective standard of the Eighth Amendment, Williams sufficiently alleges an individual
capacity claim for excessive force against Officers Davis and Stewart. The Consolidated
Complaint alleges that Davis “repeatedly … sprayed” Williams in his cell, even though Plaintiff
and his cellmate were lying on the cell’s floor in compliance with lockdown protocols. (ECF No.
6-1 at PageID 24.) Davis next kicked Williams in the face when Plaintiff recognized Davis as he
sprayed him. (Id. at PageID 25.) Nothing in the record suggests that Williams provoked Davis
into kicking or repeatedly spraying him. (See id.) Davis kicked Williams twice more, and punched
him as well, without any threat posed by Plaintiff. (See id.) When Stewart arrived shortly
thereafter, he struck Williams’s head with handcuffs -- without any suggestion of danger posed by
Williams. Stewart and Davis then together assaulted Williams, which continued until Robertson
arrived and stopped them. (Id.) Nothing in the Consolidated Complaint suggests that Williams
8
was a danger to Davis, Stewart, other Jail personnel, or fellow inmates at the time of the Incident.
Rather, Williams was, at that time, “in excruciating pain” from the spray, the face-kicks, the head-
punches, and the neck-strikes. (Id.) These facts afford a plausible inference that Davis’s and
Stewart’s spraying, kicking, and punching of the wounded Williams were objectively unreasonable
and harmful enough, in light of the Incident’s facts and circumstances, to demonstrate a

constitutional violation. See Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8; Graham, 490 U.S. at 397.
The Consolidated Complaint alleges facts about Davis’s and Stewart’s states of mind that
underscore this conclusion. Williams supposedly possessed a restraining order against Davis, who
had repeatedly harassed and assaulted Williams after a failed relationship between Plaintiff and
Davis’s sister. (ECF No. 6-1 at PageID 24 & 26 (“Davis’s sister is my ex-fiance”).) During
Davis’s and Stewart’s joint assault of Williams during the Incident, Davis stated “that was my
sister, [expletive]!” (Id. at PageID 25.) These allegations suggest Davis and Stewart harbored
malicious or sadistic intent as retribution for Williams’s broken relationship with Davis’s sister.
By the time Robertson took Williams into the hallway, Plaintiff was handcuffed and thus not a

threat to anyone. (Id. at PageID 25.) Davis’s and Stewart’s forecasts of continued force were not
a good-faith effort to restore order.
For these reasons, Plaintiff sufficiently alleges facts that demonstrate Davis and Stewart
used objectively harmful excessive force and acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind
during the Incident. See Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8; Graham, 490 U.S. at 397. Williams’s excessive
force claims against Davis and Stewart in their individual capacities SHALL PROCEED.
The Consolidated Complaint does not, however, state a cognizable claim for Eighth
Amendment deprivation by Munphrey and Elliott. After Robertson extricated Williams from the
Incident and into the hallway, Munphrey “sa[id] ‘We’re not through with you yet! We’re gonna

9
take you in the closet!’” (ECF No. 6-1 at PageID 25-26.) Munphrey next yelled: “Shut the
[expletive] up! I don’t wanna hear [expletive] you got to say. You shouldn’t have been [expletive]
with his sister.” (Id. at PageID 26.) En route to the medical office after the Incident, Elliott
“harassed and threatened [Williams] all the way, saying ‘Oh, we gone get you again. You’re not
tough now, are you!’ and ‘Wait until next time, I’m the one who gone get you!’” (Id. at PageID

26.) At most, Williams alleges that Munphrey and Elliott verbally harassed him. The Consolidated
Complaint does not allege that Munphrey or Elliot physically touched Williams.
It is well settled that verbal abuse or harassment at the hands of prison officials (or other
prisoners) does not constitute a violation of the Eight Amendment. See, e.g., Johnson v. Unknown
Dellatifa, 357 F.3d 539, 546 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding that even harassment that constitutes
“shameful and utterly unprofessional behavior” is insufficient to constitute cruel and unusual
punishment); Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950, 954-55 (6th Cir. 1987) (“Not every unpleasant
experience a prisoner might endure while incarcerated constitutes cruel and unusual
punishment.”); Violett v. Reynolds, 76 F. App’x 24, 27 (6th Cir. 2003) (holding that an officer’s

“reprehensible” action of offering of sexual favors to the plaintiff-inmate did “not rise to the level
of a constitutional violation”). Williams’s Eighth Amendment claims against Munphrey and
Elliott in their individual capacities are DISMISSED.
C. Verbal Harassment Claims Against Davis And Stewart
In addition to the statements attributed to Munphrey and Elliott as discussed supra,
Williams alleges that, during Davis and Stewart’s joint assault on him, Davis yelled: “That was
my sister, [expletive]!” (ECF No. 6-1 at PageID 25.) When Williams told Stewart about Plaintiff’s
protective order against Davis, Stewart “replied ‘Shut up, [expletive].’” (Id.)

10
To the extent Williams alleges these statements as claims for verbal harassment by Davis
and Stewart, Williams’s claims fail as a matter of law for the reasons explained supra. See
Johnson, 357 F.3d at 546; Ivey, 832 F.2d at 954-55. Williams’s verbal harassment claims against
Davis and Stewart are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim to relief.
D. Claims For Inadequate Prison Grievance Process

Williams alleges that his grievances about the Incident were unsuccessful because “the
staff of Internal Affairs was once staff of Shelby County Jail and they’re all in cahoots together
covering up these incidents.” (ECF No. 6-1 at PageID 27.) To the extent Williams alleges these
facts in support of a claim for inadequate prison grievance process, his effort fails.
“There is no inherent constitutional right to an effective prison grievance procedure.” See
LaFlame v. Montgomery Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 3 F. App’x 346, 348 (6th Cir. 2001)
(citing Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996)). A § 1983 claim cannot be
premised on contentions that the grievance procedure was inadequate. Id.
The Consolidated Complaint’s claims for inadequate prison grievance process are

DISMISSED for failure to state a claim to relief.
III. AMENDMENT UNDER THE PLRA
The Sixth Circuit has held that a district court may allow a prisoner to amend his complaint
to avoid a sua sponte dismissal under the PLRA. Lucas v. Chalk, 785 F. App’x 288, 291 (6th Cir.
2019) (citing LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013) (“[W]e hold, like every other
circuit to have reached the issue, that under Rule 15(a) a district court can allow a plaintiff to
amend his complaint even when the complaint is subject to dismissal under the PLRA”)); see also
Brown v. R.I., 511 F. App’x 4, 5 (1st Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (“Ordinarily, before dismissal for
failure to state a claim is ordered, some form of notice and an opportunity to cure the deficiencies

11
in the complaint must be afforded”). Leave to amend is not required where a deficiency cannot be
cured. Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. United States, 257 F.3d 31, 37 (1st Cir. 2001) (“This does not mean,
of course, that every sua sponte dismissal entered without prior notice to the plaintiff automatically
must be reversed. If it is crystal clear that ... amending the complaint would be futile, then a sua
sponte dismissal may stand.”); Curley v. Perry, 246 F.3d 1278, 1284 (10th Cir. 2001) (“We agree

with the majority view that sua sponte dismissal of a meritless complaint that cannot be salvaged
by amendment comports with due process and does not infringe the right of access to the courts”).
The Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend under the guidelines that the Court sets forth below.
IV. MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO SUPPRESS
Williams’s Motion To Dismiss seeks dismissal of the State of Tennessee’s criminal
indictment against Williams for kidnapping and rape. (ECF No. 7 at PageID 37-38 (arguing that
the criminal charges are “based on malicious, selective, vindictive, and outrageous prosecution”).)
The Motion To Suppress repeats Williams’s request for dismissal of Tennessee’s indictment and
asks for suppression of the alleged victim’s affidavit. (ECF No. 8 at PageID 61 & 65 (“the alleged

victim knowingly made false statements … to mislead officers … to have [Williams] arrested”).)
None of the Motions’ arguments has merit.
As an initial matter, to the extent the Motions ask the Court to dismiss state criminal
charges against Williams, such relief is exclusively available in a petition for writ of habeas
corpus. The proper vehicle for pursuing “immediate release or a speedier release” is a habeas
corpus petition. See Wilson v. Williams, 961 F.3d 829, 838 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973)). A plaintiff seeking release must do so “through a writ of
habeas corpus, not through § 1983.” Wershe v. Combs, 763 F.3d 500, 504 (6th Cir.
2014) (citing Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500). Such claim, in effect, attacks ‘the very duration of ...

12
physical confinement,’ and thus lies at ‘the core of habeas corpus.’” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S.
74, 79, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005) (citing Preiser, 411 U.S. at 487–88). Although it
is not clear from the record whether Williams has yet stood trial4, it is, in any event, outside the
purview of this Court to consider the merits of a state criminal indictment. Nothing in the Motions
persuades this Court otherwise.

To the extent the Motions argue that assistant district attorney Ray Gilbert and district
attorney general Amy Weirich violated Williams’s constitutional rights, those arguments lack
merit and do not support the Motions’ requested relief. Gilbert is the prosecutor in Williams’s
underlying criminal case, and Weirich “influenced [and] condoned” Gilbert’s prosecution. (ECF
No. 8 at PageID 63 & 64 (alleging “prosecutorial misconduct, vindictive prosecution, or selective[]
prosecut[ion]” and arguing that the district attorney “recklessly disregarded the truth and pursue[d]
falsified charges”).) Prosecutors, however, are absolutely immune from suit for actions taken in
initiating and pursuing criminal prosecutions because that conduct is “intimately associated with
the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976). “A

prosecutor’s decision to initiate a prosecution, including the decision to file a criminal complaint

4 The Tennessee Department of Correction Felony Offender Information website lists
several entries for the name “Terrance Williams.” See https://apps.tn.gov/foil/results.jsp. The
Consolidated Complaint provides no information for the Court to discern which of those
individuals, if any, is Plaintiff.
If Williams has, in fact, been sentenced to confinement and his Motions argue that such
confinement is unconstitutional, Williams would have to demonstrate that the confinement was
“declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination” or that it was “called
into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus” in order to recover
damages. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994). Because the Motions do not
demonstrate that (1) Williams’s putative confinement was declared invalid by a state tribunal and
(2) a writ of habeas corpus has issued, the Motions’ arguments about unconstitutional confinement,
if any, do not support the relief sought by the Motions.

13
or seek an arrest warrant, is protected by absolute immunity.” Howell v. Sanders, 668 F.3d 344,
351 (6th Cir. 2012). A prosecutor’s decision to bring or not bring charges against a particular
person is protected by prosecutorial immunity. Koubriti v. Convertino, 593 F.3d 459, 467 (6th
Cir. 2010). Williams argues only that the charges against him are without evidentiary support.
Gilbert’s and Weirich’s prosecution of Williams arose from actions they took in their traditional

role as advocates for the State, and so they are immune from suit for those acts. Williams’s
prosecutorial misconduct arguments do not support the relief sought in the Motions.
The result is the same for the Williams’s arguments about Sergeant C. Wages of the
Memphis Police Department. (ECF No. 8 at PageID 63 (alleging that Wages “participated in the
wrongful criminal prosecution because the victim advised him … that the story she told … was
not true, but he still charged me with charge(s) that he knew was not true”).) It is well established
that witnesses who testify at trial — whether government officials (including police officers) or
lay witnesses — are entitled to absolute immunity from suit based on that testimony. Briscoe v.
LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 334–46 (1983). “[G]rand jury witnesses … enjoy the same immunity as

witnesses at trial.” Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 369 (2012). No justification exists to
“distinguish law enforcement witnesses from lay witnesses,” and so the Supreme Court has
rejected the argument that absolute immunity does not apply to grand jury testimony provided
by police officers. Id. at 367. Because Williams’s allegations against Wages are based solely on
Wages’s allegedly false grand jury testimony, see ECF No. 8 at PageID 63, and because the
Sergeant is entitled to absolute immunity for that testimony, the Motions’ arguments about Wages
are without merit and do not support the relief Williams seeks.
For all of these reasons, the Motions (ECF Nos. 7 & 8) are DENIED.
V. CONCLUSION

14
For all of the reasons explained above:
(1) The Consolidated Complaint’s (ECF Nos. 1 & 6) (a) claims against Shelby County,
(b) official capacity claims against Davis, Stewart, Munphrey, and Elliott, (c) Eighth Amendment
claims against Munphrey and Elliott in their individual capacities, (d) verbal harassment claims
against Davis and Stewart in their individual capacities, and (e) claims for inadequate prison

grievance process (collectively, the “Dismissed Claims”) are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1). Leave to amend the Dismissed Claims is GRANTED. Any
amendment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days after the date of this order. Plaintiff is
advised that an amended complaint will supersede the original complaint and must be complete in
itself without reference to the prior pleadings. The amended complaint must be signed, and the
text of the amended complaint must allege sufficient facts to support each claim without reference
to any extraneous document. Any exhibits must be identified by number in the text of the amended
complaint and must be attached to the complaint. All claims alleged in an amended complaint

must arise from the facts alleged in the original complaint. Each claim for relief must be stated in
a separate count and must identify each Defendant sued in that count. If Plaintiff fails to file an
amended complaint within the time specified, the Court will dismiss the Dismissed Claims with
prejudice and enter judgment as to the Dismissed Claims. The Court recommends that any such
dismissal should be treated as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Simons v. Washington,
No. 20-1406, 2021 WL 1727619, at *1 (6th Cir. May 3, 2021).
(2) The Consolidated Complaint’s (ECF Nos. 1 & 6) excessive force claims against
Officer Davis and Officer Stewart in their individual capacities SHALL PROCEED. The Clerk is
ORDERED to issue process for Officer Davis and Officer Stewart and to deliver that process to

15
the U.S. Marshal for service. Service shall be made on Officer Davis and Officer Stewart pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) and Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 4.04(1) and
(10) by registered or certified mail or personally if mail service is not effective. All costs of service
shall by advanced by the United States. It is further ORDERED that Williams shall serve a copy
of every subsequent document he files in this case on the attorneys for Officer Davis and Officer

Stewart or on those Defendants personally if he is unrepresented. Plaintiff shall make a certificate
of service on every document he files. Plaintiff shall familiarize himself with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules.5 Plaintiff is reminded that he must promptly notify
the Clerk, in writing, of any change of address or extended absence. Failure to comply with these
requirements, or any other order of the Court, may result in the dismissal of this case without
further notice.
(3) As it is not within the province of this Court to ask the FBI to undertake an
investigation of state correctional facilities, see ECF No. 6 at PageID 23, Williams’s injunctive
relief request for an FBI investigation of the Jail is DISMISSED. Furthermore, because Williams

does not have standing to assert claims on behalf of inmates other than himself, see Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992), Plaintiff’s injunctive relief claim to “prevent the
[challenged] misconduct … from happening to anyone else,” see ECF No. 6 at PageID 23, is
DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED, this 9th day of February, 2022.

s/John T. Fowlkes, Jr.
JOHN T. FOWLKES, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5 A copy of the Local Rules may be obtained from the Clerk or on the Court’s website
at https://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/pdf/content/LocalRules.pdf.
16

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10440889. Public record. Not legal advice.