United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
CARLOS L. COLDON, # 158388, Plaintiff,
TAMMY RUCK, et al., Defendants.
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
L. Coldon, also known as Robert J. Froster, an inmate of the
Davidson County Sheriff's Office in Nashville, Tennessee,
filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §
12131, et seq. (ADA), and Title VI, 42 U.S.C. §
2000d, against Correct Care Solutions nurse Tammy Ruck, Chief
of Security Chris Brown, Standards Officer Jason Saad, Hill
Detention Center administrator Pam Hale, and Davidson County
Sheriff's Office case manager Jessie Oliver, alleging
violations of his federally protected rights. (Doc. No. 1).
complaint is before the Court for an initial review pursuant
to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28
U.S.C. § 1915A.
PLRA Screening Standard
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, even if the prisoner paid the civil
filing fee such as in this action, a district court must
review any “complaint in a civil action in which a
prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer
or employee of a governmental entity” and shall dismiss
any claims that are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state
claims upon which relief may be granted. Id.
court must construe a pro se complaint liberally,
United States v. Smotherman, 838 F.3d 736, 739
(6th Cir. 2016)(citing Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)), and accept the
plaintiff's factual allegations as true unless they are
entirely without credibility. See Thomas v. Eby, 481
F.3d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 2007)(citing Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992)). Although 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 court's
“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).
with his complaint, the Plaintiff has filed a letter (Doc.
No. 5), three motions to amend his complaint (Doc. Nos. 8, 9,
10), two motions to add supplemental pleadings (Doc. Nos. 11,
12), and a motion for jury trial (Doc. No. 13).
October 2017 letter, the Plaintiff alleges that nurses at the
Hill Detention Center retaliated against him for filing
grievances about his lack of accommodations by transferring
the plaintiff to another pod that was not
handicapped-accessible. (Doc. No. 5 at 1-2). The Court
construes the Plaintiff's letter as a motion to amend the
motion to amend filed on December 27, 2017 (Doc. No. 8), the
Plaintiff states that there “must have been a
misunderstanding on the clerk/court part” because the
Plaintiff intended to name Correct Care Solutions and the
Davidson County Sheriff's Office as Defendants.
(Id. at 1). The Plaintiff also states that he now
knows the name of two nurses he wants to name as Defendants,
and he asks the Court to add Tara McBay, nurse supervisor, as
a Defendant to the Plaintiff's discrimination and
retaliation claims and April McQueen, nurse, as a Defendant
to the Plaintiff's retaliation claim. (Id. at
motion to amend filed on January 17, 2018 (Doc. No. 9), the
Plaintiff adds additional facts about the claims set forth in
his original complaint and in his previous motions to amend
“motion to amend complaint and add supplemental
pleadings” received by the Court on February 12,
(Doc. No. 10) as well as the motion to add supplemental
pleadings (Doc. No. 11) received by the Court on the same
date are duplicative of the Plaintiff's earlier filings.
As such, these motions will be denied.
“motion to add supplemental pleading and defendants to
my complaint” filed by the Plaintiff on February 6,
2018, clarifies that the Plaintiff wishes to add as
Defendants the state of Tennessee; Metropolitan Government of
Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee (Metro Government);
Davidson County Sheriff's Office; Correct Care Solutions;
nurse supervisor Tara McBay; and nurse April McQueen. (Doc.
No. 12 at 1). The Plaintiff also seeks to add claims under
Tennessee state law. (Id.)
15(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that
leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so
requires.” In deciding whether to grant a motion to
amend, courts should consider undue delay in filing, lack of
notice to the opposing party, bad faith by the moving party,
repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments,
undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of
amendment. Brumbalough v. Camelot Care Ctrs., Inc.,
427 F.3d 996, 1001 (6th Cir. 2005).
proposed amendments to the complaint provide additional
context for the claims raised in the original complaint. The
amendments also seek to add new defendants and claims. With
respect to the futility of the amendments, the Court finds
that the proposed amendments to the complaint raise legal and
factual issues that the Court should consider when evaluating
the Plaintiff's complaints concerning his incarceration
at the Hill Detention Center and “MCC.” There
appears to be no undue prejudice to the opposing party by
permitting the Plaintiff to amend his complaint at this time;
no Defendants have been served. The Court therefore will
grant the motions to amend and supplement (Doc. Nos. 5, 8, 9,
and 12), and the Clerk will add Tara McBay, April McQueen,
Davidson County Sheriff's Office, Metropolitan Government
of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee (Metro), State of
Tennessee, and Correct Care Solutions as Defendants to this
the Plaintiff's request to add a jury demand to his
complaint (Doc. No. 13) will be granted.
Court will screen the original complaint, as informed by the
Plaintiff's amendments to the original complaint,
pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
complaint alleges that the Plaintiff is paralyzed and
confined to a wheelchair. Upon arriving as an inmate of the
Hill Detention Center in July 2017, the Plaintiff initially
was placed in Pod-A that is not equipped for paralyzed
inmates. After the Plaintiff's wife called and spoke with
the Plaintiff's case manager, Jessie Oliver, the
Plaintiff was moved to Pod-D, the jail's medical pod.
However, Pod-D presented some of the same accommodation
issues for the Plaintiff. The facility doctor placed an order
on September 21, 2017, for the Plaintiff to receive a
hospital style air mattress for his pressure issues, but the
Plaintiff never received it. The Plaintiff believes that he
contracted scabies from his unsanitary mattress while he was
housed in Pod-D for seventy days.
Care Solutions nurse Tammy Ruck discussed the Plaintiff's
medical information in front of a corrections officer, f/n/u
Mulligan. The Plaintiff believes that this conversation
violated his “HIPA” rights. (Doc. No. 1 at 3).
The Plaintiff filed a grievance regarding his concern. Chief
of Security Brown told the Plaintiff that his grievance
“was not a grievance” and was instead a
“case management request.” (Id.) The
grievance coordinator wrote to the Plaintiff that
“[m]edical makes every effort to maintain
confidentiality, however, security always comes first in this
environment and security staff is held to the same standard