United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
A. Trauger United States District Judge.
Green, an inmate of the Trousale Turner Correctional Center
in Hartsville, Tennessee, filed this pro se, in forma
pauperis action against the State of Tennessee, Core
Civic, Warden Rusty Washburn, and Correction Care Solutions
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his civil
rights. (Docket No. 1).
court notes that the plaintiff is subject to the
“three-strikes” provision under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g) because he has, on at least six prior occasions,
filed a civil action or an appeal that was dismissed as
frivolous, malicious or for failure to state a claim.
(See Docket No. 7 at 2)(citing cases). However, the
court previously determined that the plaintiff has
established that he is under an imminent danger of serious
physical injury and therefore has successfully demonstrated
that he falls within the exception to the PLRA's
“three-strikes” rule. (Id. at 3-4).
same order, the court took judicial notice of the fact that
local jails experienced an outbreak of scabies in 2016 and
2017. (Id. at 3). Scabies “is not an
infection, but an infestation. Tiny mites . . . set up shop
in the outer layers of human skin. The skin does not take
kindly to the invasion. As the mites burrow and lay eggs
inside the skin, the infestation leads to relentless itching
and an angry rash.”
overview (July 13, 2017). According to the World Health
Organization, scabies infestation “is frequently
complicated by bacterial infection, leading to the
development of skin sores that, in turn, can cause more
serious consequences such as septicaemia, heart disease and
chronic kidney disease.”
(March 6, 2018). (Id. at 3).
PLRA Screening Standard
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.
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, 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.
to the complaint, while incarcerated at the Trousdale Turner
Correctional Center, the plaintiff filed for a “sick
call” (an appointment to see the facility physician) on
approximately August 7, 2017. On September 7, 2017, the
plaintiff received his infirmary pass and told his pod
officer that he needed to report to the infirmary. The
officer told the plaintiff that he could not leave his cell
because the prison was on lock-down. The pill nurse came to
the plaintiff's cell to give medication to another
inmate, and the plaintiff asked her if he could leave his
cell to report to the infirmary. The pill nurse “said
no one is going to sick-call because the nursing staff
feel[s] unsafe.” (Docket No. 1 at 2).
September 12, 2017, at approximately 2:45 a.m., the plaintiff
told his pod officer that he needed an emergency sick call.
The nurse came to the plaintiff's pod, and the plaintiff
stated that he was “itching all over [his] body real
bad.” (Id. at 2). The nurse told the plaintiff
that his itching was not an emergency and that he would need