Smalls v. Shelby County (Sheriffs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
SHEQUITA SMALLS, on behalf of
DERRICK SMALLS, deceased,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 2:25-cv-02579-SHL-tmp
v.
SHELBY COUNTY, et al.,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
DISMISSING COMPLAINT
On June 9, 2025, Plaintiff Shequita Smalls, on behalf of her deceased husband, Derrick
Smalls, filed a complaint in which she alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 related to her
husband’s arrest, custodial treatment, and eventual death. (ECF No. 2.) On October 31, 2025,
Chief Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham entered an order sua sponte granting Smalls leave to file an
amended complaint based on the fact that, although the complaint included several exhibits
containing medical records that provided background as to her husband’s death, it was bereft of
any factual allegations. (ECF No. 8.) Smalls filed an amended complaint on November 20.
(ECF No. 9.) Judge Pham screened the complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)1 and issued a
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on December 4, 2025, recommending that the complaints
be dismissed for failure to state claim. (ECF No. 10.) There being no objections to the R&R,
and finding no clear error, it is ADOPTED.
1 Because Smalls is proceeding in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7), her complaint must be
preliminarily screened to determine whether it is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Case 2:25-cv-02579-SHL-tmp Document 11 Filed 01/16/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID
<pageID>

2
ANALYSIS
A magistrate judge may submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and
recommendations that assist in the determination of certain pretrial matters. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A)–(B). “Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended
disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A district court
reviews de novo only those proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law to which a party
specifically objects; the rest are reviewed for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). Smalls’s deadline to object to the R&R was December 18, 2025. (See ECF No. 10 at
PageID 96.) She has not filed any objections.
In her amended complaint, Smalls clarifies that she is alleging that the Shelby County
Sheriff, several of the jailers at the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office, medical staff at the jail, and
airport police officers, delayed in assessing and treating her husband’s mental health, failed to
provide him medical care, and deprived him of his civil rights. (ECF No. 9 at PageID 74.) She
alleges that the evidence she gathered demonstrates that her husband “was experiencing a
trauma-induced psychotic episode, [] standard mental-health crisis protocols were not initiated, []
custodial staff failed to provide timely medical assessment, and [] subsequent restraint and
handling procedures contributed to his medical deterioration.” (Id. at PageID 78.) Specifically,
Smalls alleges that her husband was experiencing trauma-induced psychosis, and was transported
to the Shelby County Criminal Justice Center where he was booked without a documented
medical evaluation. (Id. at PageID 79.) There, she alleges, he was placed into a restraint chair
and eventually ended up on the floor. (Id. at PageID 80.) Her husband was then dragged “from
court holding to Medical,” where, after his assessment was delayed by thirty minutes, he
Case 2:25-cv-02579-SHL-tmp Document 11 Filed 01/16/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID
<pageID>

3
eventually “was transported to Regional Medical Center.” (Id. at PageID 82.) He was
unresponsive at the hospital, was experiencing seizures, and needed immediate dialysis due to
organ failure. (Id. at PageID 83.) Smalls alleges that her husband’s mishandling ultimately
resulted in his death. (Id. at PageID 84.)
In his R&R, Judge Pham correctly finds that Smalls fails to state a § 1983 claim against
Shelby County because the complaints fail to “provide any factual allegations to support that the
municipal defendant had an unlawful policy or custom that deprived Derrick Smalls of a
constitutional right,” as is required under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658
(1978). (ECF No. 10 at PageID 90.) As a result, Judge Pham concludes that Smalls’s § 1983
claims against Shelby County should be dismissed because she “has not plausibly alleged that
Shelby County so inadequately failed to train its officers or ignored a pattern of sufficiently
similar constitutional violations for municipal liability to attach.” (Id. at PageID 94.)
Judge Pham also correctly concludes that, to the extent Smalls sued individual officers in
their official capacities, those claims also fail because “[w]hen a government official is sued in
their official capacity, courts treat it as ‘the equivalent of a suit against the governmental entity,’
so the Monell requirements would still apply.” (Id. at PageID 95 (quoting Lane v. City of
Lafollette, 490 F.3d 410, 423 (6th Cir. 2007)).)
Finally, Judge Pham correctly concludes that, to the extent Smalls sued the officers and
other staff in their individual capacities, she has failed to state a claim because she “does not
identify how any particular individual acted to violate her husband’s constitutional rights, nor
does she provide facts alleging which of the named officers and staff were personally responsible
for which parts of the encounter.” (Id. at PageID 96.) This failure to “identify how any
particular individual acted to violate her husband’s constitutional rights,” or to “provide facts
Case 2:25-cv-02579-SHL-tmp Document 11 Filed 01/16/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID
<pageID>

4
alleging which of the named officers and staff were personally responsible for which parts of the
encounter,” means that her “complaint does not meet the standard of individual liability
against the officers and staff.” (Id. at PageID 96.)
The Court has reviewed the R&R in its entirety for clear error and finds none. The R&R
correctly found that Smalls’s complaints fail to state a claim under § 1983 for municipal liability,
or for liability for the individually named Defendants in either their official or individual
capacities. Thus, the R&R is ADOPTED and the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of January, 2026.
s/ Sheryl H. Lipman
SHERYL H. LIPMAN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02579-SHL-tmp Document 11 Filed 01/16/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID
<pageID>