United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Columbia Division
William J. Haynes, Jr., Senior District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Brown United States Magistrate Judge
to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28
U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), this action was
referred to the undersigned for consideration of all pretrial
matters, including any dispositive motions filed by the
parties. Docket Entry No. 6.
pending before the Court are plaintiff's Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction
(Docket Entry No. 3); plaintiff's Motion for Leave to
File an Amended Complaint (Docket Entry Nos. 49 and 68);
defendants' Motions to Strike the Amended Complaint
(Docket Entry Nos. 51 and 59); defendants' Motions to
Dismiss (Docket Entry Nos. 52, 56 and 77); defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 60); and
plaintiff's Motions for an evidentiary hearing “to
resolve the factual basis for his opposition to
defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment” (Docket
Entry Nos. 103 and 111).
plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is an inmate at the
South Central Correctional Center (SCCC) in Clifton,
Tennessee. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against twenty two (22) defendants. These defendants
include the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), its
President, Damon Hininger, and Jason Medlin, Regional
Director for CCA (the “CCA defendants”); Derrick
Schofield, former Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of
Correction (TDOC), Tony Parker, current Commissioner of TDOC,
Jason Woodall, Deputy Commissioner of TDOC, Bryant Williams,
a former contract monitor for TDOC, Cole Turner, currently
serving as a contract monitor for TDOC, and Joel Foster, a
liaison for TDOC (the “TDOC defendants”); and
Cherry Lindamood, Warden of SCCC, with twelve members of her
staff (West, Bryant, Buttram, Harrison, Dodd, McClain, H.
Inman, K. Inman, Ward, Deathrage, Jackson and Harville)(the
October 2, 2015, the plaintiff arrived at SCCC. Since his
arrival, plaintiff alleges that he “has been
continually subject to physical assaults and abuse from other
inmates.” Docket Entry No. 1 at pg. 10. He attributes
this to overcrowding and a culture in which the defendants
have allowed inmate gangs to take control of whole housing
units at the prison.
plaintiff believes that, in an effort to save money, the
defendants have failed to maintain adequate staffing levels
and properly train their personnel. He also complains that
the defendants have implemented and enforced de
facto policies which have created dangerous and
uncontrolled conditions of confinement, that he has been
forced to walk with his hands behind his back, that he has
been forced “to choose between starving or remaining in
the housing unit day room, for literally hours at a
time”, and that he has been forced to stand at
attention for “inordinately long periods of time while
being denied permission to use the bathroom”.
Amendment of the Complaint
original complaint is 157 pages in length. It is often
difficult to follow and lacks the cohesiveness that a short
and concise statement of the claims would provide. For that
reason, the plaintiff was invited by the Court to amend his
complaint with a “succinct summary” of what each
of the defendants is alleged to have done. Docket Entry No.
43 at pgs. 2-3.
response, the plaintiff has filed two motions (Docket Entry
Nos. 49 and 68) to amend, one of which includes a proposed
amended complaint. The plaintiff's proposed amended
complaint is but 31 pages in length. The defendants have
submitted motions (Docket Entry Nos. 51 and 59) to strike the
plaintiff may amend his complaint “only with the
opposing party's written consent or the court's
leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so
requires.” Rule 15(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P. In this regard,
justice is better served with a more concise complaint before
the Court. Thus, in light of the circumstances, it would be
more appropriate to strike the defendants' motions in
opposition and allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint.
Defendants Not Yet Served
the defendants, i.e., Bryant Williams (Docket Entry No. 11),
Kathy Inman (Docket Entry Nos. 23 and 70), Joel Foster
(Docket Entry No. 69) and Cole Turner (Docket ...