United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Cornelius Pierce, formerly an inmate of the Whiteville
Correctional Facility in Whiteville, Tennessee, brings this
pro se, in forma pauperis action against
Correct Care, f/n/u Bridges, Core Civic, and Charlie Peterson
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the
Plaintiff's civil rights. (Doc. No. 1). He also filed a
“notice of injury and retaliation” (Doc. No. 3)
and two letters to the Court (Doc. Nos. 5 and 9).
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 1915A.
Notices and Letters
Plaintiff has filed a “notice of injury and
retaliation” (Doc. No. 3) and two letters to Court
(Doc. Nos. 5 and 9). The Plaintiff's notice and letters
restate the allegations of the complaint and add details and
claims not previously mentioned in the original complaint.
The Court will consider the notice and letters in evaluating
the Plaintiff's claims pursuant to the PLRA. However,
going forward, the Plaintiff is advised that he cannot
litigate this action or any action in this Court by way of
letters and notices to the Court. Even though the Plaintiff
is proceeding pro se and the Court will take into
consideration his pro se status when evaluating
pleadings and pending motions, the Plaintiff is still
required to comply with the rules governing this case. These
rules exist to ensure fairness to all parties. If the
Plaintiff wishes for the Court to consider arguments and
evidence, he must raise them by way of timely and properly
the Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in
this case, the Court is required to screen the complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under 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.
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
brings his complaint 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, a 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, on December 28, 2016, while an inmate
of the Metro-Davidson County Detention Facility in Nashville,
Tennessee, the Plaintiff was working the kitchen detail and
fell. During the fall, he sustained injuries to his wrist.
The Plaintiff saw a nurse who gave him Naproxen for his pain.
The nurse told the Plaintiff that he would see a doctor the
next day. After a week passed without seeing a doctor, the
Plaintiff began “putting in sick calls” and was
finally seen by a doctor in February 2017. (Doc. No. 1 at 5).
Soon thereafter, the Plaintiff received an x-ray and learned
that his wrist was broken. (Doc. No. 3 at 1). The doctor told
the Plaintiff that there was “nothing they can do about
[his] wrist [be]cause it happen[ed] to[o] long ago.”
(Id.) According to the complaint, the
Plaintiff's wrist constantly hurts. (Doc. No. 1 at 5).
Plaintiff believes that Core Civic retaliated against him for
filing this lawsuit by sending the Plaintiff to the
Whiteville prison. (Doc. Nos. 3 at 2, 9 at 1). The Plaintiff
describes by letter how the Whiteville staff refused assist
the Plaintiff with his trust fund account statement and
refused to give him papers he needs to challenge his
sentence. (Doc. No. 9 at 1). The Plaintiff also believes that
Core Civic retaliated against him by conducting