United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division
PEREZ D. BASS, Plaintiff,
CHERYL TAYLOR, ET AL., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND
AND DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF NO.
D. TODD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
November 28, 2018, Plaintiff Perez D. Bass, who is
incarcerated at the Whiteville Correctional Facility (WCF) in
Whiteville, Tennessee, filed a pro se complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 5.) The Court
issued an order on November 29, 2018, granting leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and assessing the civil
filing fee pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)-(b). (ECF No. 6.) The
Clerk shall record the Defendants as Cheryl Taylor; Dr. First
Name Unknown (FNU) Bishop, Optometrist; Medical Director FNU
Preston; Medical Director Thomas Corman; FNU Stokes, RN; FNU
Wuni, RN; Nicole Walker, Assistant Warden of Medical; Andrew
Crothers; Allen Chalk, Mental Health Advocate; WCF Warden
Arvil Chapman; Tony Parker, Commissioner of the Tennessee
Department of Correction (TDOC); James Bellar, City of
Whiteville Mayor; Jimmy Sain, Hardeman County Mayor; Cynthia
Casagranda, TDOC Liaison; FNU McCalvin, RN; Dr. Larry
Bloomingburg; the TDOC; CoreCivic; Corizon Health; and the
City of Whiteville.
alleges that he suffers from keratoconus, which is a chronic
eye condition treated with “a special type of hard
contact lense [sic].” (ECF No. 1 at PageID 4.) Bass
received the contact lenses while he was housed at the Lois
M. DeBerry Special Needs Facility. (Id. at PageID
4.) Bass was transferred to WCF in December 2015 and
requested more contact solution for his lenses.
(Id.) An unnamed nurse initially informed Bass that
the contact solution was considered a cosmetic, so the
facility did not carry it, but later gave him what he
believed was the solution but actually was “eye wash by
the name of ‘Aqua.'” (ECF No. 1-1 at PageID
October 8, 2016, Bass saw Dr. Bishop for eye pain and more
contact lenses, but Dr. Bishop informed him that he had scar
tissue on his left cornea that needed to be removed to
prevent infection. (Id.) Unnamed optometrists at a
clinic in Memphis, Tennessee, agreed Bass needed to have the
scar tissue removed. (Id.) Bass alleges, however,
that his requests to return to the clinic were repeatedly
denied, he was told not to file further sick call requests,
and he would not receive more contact lenses. (Id.)
eventually was taken to see Dr. Bloomingburg in Henderson,
Tennessee, for new contact lenses, but Dr. Bloomingburg
refused to give Bass the lenses until the WCF agreed to pay
for them, which Bass alleges never happened. (Id. at
PageID 8-9.) Bass alleges that the pain in his eyes has
worsened and is constant, occurring even after he was given
new contact lenses,  and that he suffers from loss of vision
and headaches. (Id. at PageID 9.) Bass states,
without elaboration, that he has a “list of problem
[sic] that I'm having out of WCFA” which “is
long and will take time to explain all of them.”
sues the Defendants in their official and individual
capacities. (ECF No. 1 at PageID 1.) He seeks declaratory
judgment, $10 million each in compensatory and punitive
damages, and reimbursement of costs. (Id. at PageID
5; ECF No. 1-1 at PageID 11.)
Court is required to screen prisoner complaints and to
dismiss any complaint, or any portion thereof, if the
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also 28 U.S.C. §
assessing whether the complaint in this case states a claim
on which relief may be granted, the standards under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), as stated in Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-79 (2009), and in Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007),
are applied. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71
(6th Cir. 2010). The Court accepts the complaint's
“well-pleaded” factual allegations as true and
then determines whether the allegations “plausibly
suggest an entitlement to relief.'” Williams v.
Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681). Conclusory allegations
“are not entitled to the assumption of truth, ”
and legal conclusions “must be supported by factual
allegations.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Although
a complaint need only contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), Rule 8 nevertheless
requires factual allegations to make a
“‘showing,' rather than a blanket assertion,
of entitlement to relief.” Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 555 n.3.
se complaints are to be held ‘to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,' and
should therefore be liberally construed.”
Williams, 631 F.3d at 383 (quoting Martin v.
Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004)). Pro
se litigants, however, are not exempt from the
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989);
see also Brown v. Matauszak, 415 Fed.Appx. 608, 612,
613 (6th Cir. Jan. 31, 2011) (affirming dismissal of pro
se complaint for failure to comply with “unique
pleading requirements” and stating “a court
cannot ‘create a claim which [a plaintiff] has not
spelled out in his pleading'” (quoting Clark v.
Nat'l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169
(6th Cir. 1975))).
filed his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or
the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person
within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution
and laws, shall be liable to the party ...