United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Columbia Division
NEWBERN, MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Andre Kimbrough, an inmate of the South Central Correctional
Facility (“SCCF”) in Clifton, Tennessee, filed
this pro se, in forma pauperis action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against Core Civic and Jamie Gardner, the Health
Services Administrator at SCCF, alleging violations of
Plaintiff's civil and constitutional rights. (Doc. No.
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.
PLRA Screening Standard
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a 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).
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 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
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
Section 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. Dominguez v. Corr. Med. Servs., 555 F.3d
543, 549 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Sigley v.
City of Panama Heights, 437 F.3d 527, 533
(6th Cir. 2006)); 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
complaint alleges that, on May 14, 2018, Plaintiff's hand
was injured while working at his SCCF gym job. The recreation
supervisor called the medical department, and Plaintiff went
to the medical department that day. However, no x-ray
technician was present so Plaintiff's hand could not be
x-rayed. Plaintiff received a physical examination and was
told to return to the next day. Plaintiff returned to the
medical department the following day and received an x-ray.
The x-ray technician told Plaintiff that a bone in his hand
was broken and told a doctor that Plaintiff needed a cast.
However, the medical staff refused to place Plaintiff's
hand in a cast for three weeks, during which time Plaintiff
experienced “excruciating” pain. Finally, on June
7, 2018, Plaintiff's hand was placed in a cast. (Doc. No.
1 at 4).
names two Defendants to this action: Core Civic and Jamie
Gardner. (Doc. No. 1 at 4). Plaintiff indicates that he sues
Gardner in his/her individual and official capacities.
(Id. at 1). Plaintiff also indicates ...