Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Leach v. Corrections Corporation of America

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee

November 9, 2017

TAZARIUS LEACH, Plaintiff
v.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; et al., Defendants

          THE HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          JOE B. BROWN United States Magistrate Judge

         On August 24, 2017 (Docket Entry 47) the Plaintiff was directed to show cause why the Magistrate Judge should not recommend that complaints against unserved Defendants be dismissed for failure to prosecute by obtaining service of process.

         The Plaintiff filed a response (Docket Entry 48) that did not address the issue of why he has not identified the John Doe Defendant or obtained service of process on Defendants Aballay, Grievance Chairperson; Garner; and Correctional Officer Moran. For the reasons stated below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the complaint against Doe, the Grievance Chairperson, and Garner be dismissed without prejudice for failure to obtain service of process in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

         BACKGROUND

         The Plaintiff filed his complaint in forma pauperis on November 14, 2016 (Docket Entry 1). After an application to proceed in forma pauperis was approved the District Judge allowed the case to proceed on January 4, 2017 (Docket Entry 8). The facts alleged by the Plaintiff were summarized in paragraph III of the District Judge's order, as follows:

The 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.
On May 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. 10).
On May 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.)
On May 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 glucose level was severely low. (Id. at p. 11).
The complaint alleges that TTCC “is a Facility not Equipped and not Staffed therefore unable to address this Medical Condition with CCA Corporate Office first Approving funds for ‘Every Individual' Medical need resulting in Essential Treatment being Delayed, Often Failing to meet Medical needs Specifically during Plaintiff's Debilitating State of Health.” (Id. at p. 12). The plaintiff believes that CCA is deliberating attempting to avoid the high costs associated with the treatment of diabetes. (Id.)
The complaint further alleges that when the plaintiff has submitted grievances concerning his medical treatment for diabetes, Defendant Garner has refused to process the grievances and shared many of the grievances among the TTCC staff, violating the plaintiff's privacy rights and causing certain staff members to retaliate against the plaintiff for having filed grievances. (Id. at p. 4).

         In the Court's memorandum (Docket Entry 8) the Plaintiff was advised that he needed to file an amended complaint to specify which Defendants retaliated against him because he filed grievances against them pertaining to his medical treatment.

         The Plaintiff has not amended his complaint. Summonses were issued on the last known address provided by CCA for identified Defendants (Docket Entry 44) Moran, Schweitzer, and Aballay. The summons for Moran was returned as unexecuted as the individual did not live at the address provided. The Marshals Service has advised the summons for Schweitzer has been sent to East Tennessee and Aballay has moved with no address. It does ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.