Moore v. Perry et al, No. 1:2015cv01213 - Document 15 (W.D. Tenn. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 14 MOTION TO AMEND AND DIRECTING CLERK TO MODIFY THE DOCKET, PARTIALLY DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING THAT PROCESS BE ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE REMAINING DEFENDANTS. Signed by Judge James D. Todd on 8/14/18. (mbm)

Download PDF

defendant individually. Bishop v. Hackel, 636 F.3d 757, 767 (6th Cir. 2011); see also id. at 768 (“[W]e must focus on whether each individual Deputy had the personal involvement necessary to permit a finding of subjective knowledge.”). It is not per se unconstitutional to require an inmate to pay for his own medications, but indigent inmates must be provided with medical care regardless of ability to pay. White v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 94 F. App’x 262, 264 (6th Cir. 2004) (“It is constitutional to charge inmates a small fee for health care where indigent inmates are guaranteed service regardless of ability to pay.”); see also Anderson v. Less, No. 14-3167 (6th Cir. Sept. 19, 2014) (citing White); Flanory v. Bonn, 604 F.3d 249, 256 (6th Cir. 2010). In this case, the Court finds that Moore has stated an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Dietz and Herron for lack of adequate medical care. With regard to Moore’s claims against CoreCivic, “[a] private corporation that performs the traditional state function of operating a prison acts under color of state law for purposes of § 1983.” Thomas v. Coble, 55 F. App’x 748, 748 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Street v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d 810, 814 (6th Cir. 1996)); see also Parsons v. Caruso, 491 F. App’x 597, 609 (6th Cir. 2012) (corporation that provides medical care to prisoners can be sued under § 1983). The Sixth Circuit has applied the standards for assessing municipal liability to claims against private corporations that operate prisons or provide medical care to prisoners. Thomas, 55 F. App’x at 748-49; Street, 102 F.3d at 817-18; Johnson v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 26 F. App’x 386, 388 (6th Cir. 5 2001). CoreCivic “cannot be held liable under a theory of respondeat superior.” Braswell v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 419 F. App’x 622, 627 (6th Cir. 2011). Instead, to prevail on a § 1983 claim against CoreCivic, Plaintiff “must show that a policy or well-settled custom of the company was the ‘moving force’ behind the alleged deprivation” of his rights. Id. Although the complaint is not a model of clarity, pro se complaints must be construed liberally. Moore alleges that the policy in question, requiring inmates at the HCCF to purchase needed medications or go without, was put in place by the Defendants, including CoreCivic, in order to maximize profits. (ECF No. 12 at 4, 6.) Therefore, the Court finds that Moore has stated an Eighth Amendment claim against CoreCivic. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the claims against Defendant Perry for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). Process will be issued for Defendant CoreCivic and for Defendants Deitz and Herron in their individual capacities. It is ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process for Defendants CoreCivic, Dietz and Herron and deliver that process to the U.S. Marshal for service. Service shall be made on Defendant CoreCivic3 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h) and Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 4.04(4) and (10) and on Defendants Dietz and Herron pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) and Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 4.04(1) and (10), either by mail or personally if mail service is not effective. All costs of service shall by advanced by the United States. 3 CoreCivic’s registered agent for service of process is CT Corporation System, 300 Montvue Rd., Knoxville, TN 37919-5546. See https://tnbear.tn.gov/Ecommerce/FilingSearch.aspx. 6 It is further ORDERED that Moore shall serve a copy of every subsequent document he files in this cause on the attorneys for Defendants CoreCivic, Dietz and Herron or on any unrepresented Defendant. Moore shall make a certificate of service on every document filed. Moore shall familiarize himself with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules.4 Moore is reminded that he must promptly notify the Clerk, in writing, of any change of address or extended absence. Failure to comply with these requirements or any other order of the Court may result in the dismissal of this case without further notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ James D. Todd JAMES D. TODD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4 A copy of the Local Rules may be obtained from the Clerk. The Local Rules are also available on the Court’s website at https://tnwd.courts.gov/pdf/content/LocalRules.pdf. 7

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.