United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
TAZARIUS LEACH, No. 513883,
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
H. Sharp Chief United States District Judge
Tazarius Leach, an inmate of the Trousdale Turner
Correctional Center in Hartsville, Tennessee, has filed a
pro se, in forma pauperis complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a number of
defendants, alleging violations of the plaintiff's
federal civil rights and state law. (Docket No. 1). The
plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
(Id. at p. 6).
plaintiff's complaint is before the court for an initial
review pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and
PLRA Screening Standard
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss any
portion of a civil complaint filed in forma pauperis
that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
is frivolous, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief. Section 1915A similarly requires
initial review of any “complaint in a civil action in
which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity, ”
id. § 1915A(a), and summary dismissal of the
complaint on the same grounds as those articulated in §
1915(e)(2)(B). Id. § 1915A(b).
Sixth Circuit has confirmed that the dismissal standard
articulated by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), “governs
dismissals for failure to state a claim under those statutes
because the relevant statutory language tracks the language
in Rule 12(b)(6).” Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d
468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). Thus, to survive scrutiny on
initial review, “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[A] district court
must (1) view the complaint in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff and (2) take all well-pleaded factual
allegations as true.” Tackett v. M & G
Polymers, USA, LLC, 561F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009)
(citing Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th
Cir. 2009) (citations omitted)).
pro se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent
standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Jourdan v.
Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991), the courts'
“duty to be ‘less stringent' with pro
se complaints does not require us to conjure up
[unpleaded] allegations.” McDonald v. Hall,
610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979) (citation omitted).
Section 1983 Standard
plaintiff brings his claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates a
cause of action against any person who, acting under color of
state law, abridges “rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws . . . .” To state
a claim under § 1983, the plaintiff must allege and show
two elements: (1) that he was deprived of a right secured by
the Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) that
the deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of
state law. Tahfs v. Proctor, 316 F.3d 584, 590
(6th Cir. 2003); 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
complaint alleges that the plaintiff is an inmate of the
Trousdale Turner Correctional Center (TTCC) and is a Stage II
insulin-dependent diabetic, a condition documented upon his
arrival as a prisoner at the TTCC. (Docket No. 1 at p. 9).
According to the complaint, on the following dates, the
plaintiff failed to receive at least one of his required
doses of insulin: April 28, 2016, April 29, 2016; May 16,
2016; May 17, 2016; May 23, 2016; May 25, 2016; and May 27,
2016. Similarly, on the following dates, the complaint
alleges that the plaintiff did not receive a meal
specifically designed for insulin-dependent inmates: May 18,
2016 and May 19, 2016.
20, 2016, the plaintiff needed medical attention but was
ignored by C/O Morom and an unnamed C/O. The unnamed C/O told
the plaintiff not to push the emergency call button or he
would be given a Class A Disciplinary. (Id. at p.
21, 2016, the plaintiff asked C/O Morquec to call medical for
him, but Morque said that the Lt. Ecford was on his way but
Ecford never arrived and Morque told the plaintiff that he
was not going to do anything further. (Id.)
23, 2016, the plaintiff asked C/O Mitchell to call medical
for him, but the plaintiff was not given his insulin on time
and his ...