Quintin Qualls v. MARK LUTTRELL, Sheriff

*The Honorable Adrian G. Duplantier, United States District Judge for the Eastern District
of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0237n.06
Filed: March 30, 2005
No. 04-5266
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Quintin Qualls,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
MARK LUTTRELL, Sheriff, in his official
capacity as Sheriff of Shelby County,
Tennessee; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL
SERVICES; JOSEPH PONTE, in his official
capacity as Director of Shelby County Jail;
GERALD STIPANUCK, in his personal and
official capacity as a,
Defendants-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
BEFORE: MERRITT and ROGERS, Circuit Judges; and DUPLANTIER,* District Judge.
MERRITT, Circuit Judge. In this prisoner civil rights case for “deliberate indifference to
plaintiff’s safety” brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the District Court dismissed the case because the
prisoner, who is complaining of spiders in his cell, failed to file a proper grievance at any step in the
grievance process. On appeal, the prisoner has dismissed all parties to this case other than Sheriff
Luttrell and Director Ponte, who were sued in their official capacities only, and who the prisoner

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-5266
Qualls v. Luttrell
-2-
claims were deliberately indifferent to his welfare because they knew the Shelby County Jail had
a serious spider problem.
The two remaining defendants, Luttrell and Ponte, are named only in their official capacities
and not in their individual capacities. The suit seeks monetary damages and declaratory relief. As
to the prisoner’s claim for monetary damages, sovereign immunity bars a § 1983 suit for monetary
damages against a prison official in his official capacity. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491
U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Jarvis v. Marcum, No. 03-5331, 2003 WL 22205080 (6th Cir. Sept. 22, 2003).
That portion of the prisoner’s suit that seeks declaratory relief is now moot because the prisoner has
been moved to another facility.
Therefore, the District Court did not err in dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, the
judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --