Adams v. Lewis et al

Filing 71

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time 69 is GRANTED nunc pro tunc to the date of filing, and his motion to further amend his amended complaint 67 is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee on 5/24/23. (c/m Christopher Adams 328180 TROUSDALE TURNER CORRECTIONAL CENTER WD218 140 MACON WAY HARTSVILLE, TN 37074 ) (ADA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
CHRISTOPHER ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
RANDALL LEWIS,
FRANK STRADA, and
SHAWN PHILLIPS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.:

1:22-CV-125-SKL

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This pro se prisoner’s civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is proceeding against
Defendant Randall Lewis in his individual capacity, and against Defendants Frank Strada1 and
Shawn Phillips in their official capacities, as to Plaintiff’s claim that he was subjected to a
retaliatory prison transfer for the exercise of his First Amendment rights [See Doc. 11 & Doc. 20].
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to further amend his amended complaint to assert a claim
that Sergeant Luke Burns and Defendant Lewis conspired to retaliate against him [Doc. 67], and a
motion for an extension of time within which to file a reply to Defendants’ response in opposition
to his motion [Doc. 69]. Upon consideration of the record, the parties’ arguments, and the
applicable law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for time nunc pro tunc and DENIES his
motion to amend.
I.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1

Frank Strada was substituted as Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of
Correction in place of former Commissioner, Lisa Helton [Doc. 66, citing Rule 25(d) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure].

Case 1:22-cv-00125-SKL Document 71 Filed 05/24/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 809

Plaintiff maintains that he was transferred from the Bledsoe County Correctional Complex
(“BCCX”) to the Trousdale Turner Correctional Center (“TTCC”) in retaliation for filing lawsuits
and grievances [See Doc. 11 & Doc. 20]. In screening Plaintiff’s initial complaint in accordance
with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court rejected as speculative
Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants conspired to transfer Plaintiff to TTCC [See Doc. 9 p. 8-9]. In
June 2022, Plaintiff reiterated his conspiracy claims in his amended complaint [Doc. 10], and the
Court again dismissed those allegations as insufficient to state a claim under § 1983 [Doc. 11 p.
5].
On or about October 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his amended complaint,
again asserting facts seeking to establish a conspiracy claim against Defendant Lewis and other,
previously dismissed Defendants [See Doc. 34-2 p. 11-13]. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion
to amend, noting that it would “not continue to entertain this speculative [conspiracy] claim or the
factual allegations underlying it” [Doc. 40 p. 3].
Defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied [Doc. 35 & Doc. 55].
Approximately one month after Defendants filed an answer to Plaintiff’s amended complaint [Doc.
60], Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to amend his amended complaint seeking another
opportunity to litigate a conspiracy claim against Defendant Lewis and Sergeant Luke Burns [Doc.
67]. Defendants oppose the motion on the grounds that (1) the proposed amendment is subject to
a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and is, therefore, futile, and (2) Plaintiff unduly delayed in seeking leave
to amend to offer evidence previously available to him [Doc. 68]. In reply, Plaintiff claims that
he timely moved to amend his amended complaint with “direct evidence that Sergeant Luke Burns
(Sgt. Burns) conspired to retaliate against Plaintiff by requesting for Defendant Randall Lewis to
transfer him because of a previous lawsuit” [Doc. 70 p. 2]. This matter is now ripe for review.

2
Case 1:22-cv-00125-SKL Document 71 Filed 05/24/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 810

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to amend its complaint

without leave of court within 21 days after serving it, or within 21 days after a responsive pleading
has been served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)-(2). Otherwise, courts “should freely give leave [to
amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In exercising its discretion whether
justice requires amendment, courts are to consider such factors as “undue delay, bad faith or
dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the
amendment, [and] futility of amendment[.]” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Despite
the liberal policy of permitting amendment suggested by Rule 15, denial of leave to amend is
appropriate when it is apparent that the proposed amendment would not withstand a motion to
dismiss. Neighborhood Dev. Corp. v. Advisory Council on Hist. Pres., 632 F.2d 21, 23 (6th Cir.
1980).
III.

ANALYSIS
“A civil conspiracy under § 1983 is an agreement between two or more persons to injure

another by unlawful action.” Crowley v. Anderson Cnty., Tenn., 783 F. App’x 556, 560 (6th Cir.
2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To state a § 1983 conspiracy claim, Plaintiff
must demonstrate “‘that (1) a single plan existed, (2) the conspirators shared a conspiratorial
objective to deprive the plaintiffs of their constitutional rights, and (3) an overt act was committed’
in furtherance of the conspiracy that caused the injury.” Robertson v. Lucas, 753 F.3d 606, 622
(6th Cir. 2014) (citing Revis v. Meldrum, 489 F.3d 273, 290 (6th Cir. 2007)). Because “[r]arely in
a conspiracy case will there be direct evidence of an express agreement among all the conspirators
to conspire, . . . circumstantial evidence may provide adequate proof of conspiracy.” Weberg v.

3
Case 1:22-cv-00125-SKL Document 71 Filed 05/24/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 811

Franks, 229 F.3d 514, 528 (6th Cir. 2000) (alteration in original). However, the pleading
requirements “are relatively strict” and require conspiracy claims to “be pled with some degree of
specificity.” Fieger v. Cox, 524 F.3d 770, 776 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Gutierrez v. Lynch, 826 F.2d
1534, 1538 (6th Cir. 1987)).
In asking the Court to revive his previously dismissed conspiracy claim, Plaintiff argues
that he has uncovered direct (and an abundance of circumstantial) evidence of conspiracy between
Defendant Lewis and Sergeant Burns to punish and retaliate against Plaintiff [Doc. 67 p. 4]. In
support of his motion, Plaintiff has attached fifty-six pages of documents that he maintains provide
proof of this alleged conspiracy [See Doc. 67-2]. In large part, Plaintiff’s proposed amendment
relies on the declaration of Bruce Tuck, who maintains that Sergeant Burns bragged in Tuck’s
presence that “he wanted Chris Adams placed on the [transfer] list because he had become ‘too
comfortable with the staff, calling staff members by their first names and demanding that things
be done on behalf of [T]he Lifer’s Club, but the real reason was due to the lawsuit that Chris filed
against TRICOR’” [Doc. 67-2 p. 9].
Plaintiff also directs the Court to the following facts in support of his claim that Defendant
Lewis and Sergeant Burns conspired to retaliate against Plaintiff: (1) Defendant Lewis and
Sergeant Burns had a close familial and working relationship; (2) Defendant Lewis and Sergeant
Burns knew of Plaintiff’s prior lawsuits and the impact those lawsuits had on their friends, family,
and colleagues; (3) Defendant Lewis and/or Sergeant Burns have “expressed dissatisfaction over
inmates complaining and/or discussed seeking retribution against inmates”; (4) Sergeant Burns
stopped sponsoring The Lifer’s Club after Plaintiff confronted Sergeant Burns regarding an inmate
who was improperly placed on the organization’s membership roster; and (5) the temporal

4
Case 1:22-cv-00125-SKL Document 71 Filed 05/24/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 812

proximity between Plaintiff’s complaints to Defendant Lewis and Plaintiff’s subsequent transfer
[Doc. 67-1 ¶¶ 48-58, 69, 72].
On three prior occasions, this Court found Plaintiff’s allegations insufficient to state a
plausible civil conspiracy claim [See Doc. 9 p. 8-9; Doc. 11 p. 5; Doc. 40 p. 3]. The Court now
finds that Plaintiff’s “new evidence”—namely, the declaration of Bruce Tuck—does not “nudge”
his claim of conspiracy “across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Specifically, the Court notes that Tuck’s statement only maintains that
Sergeant Burns shared his personal motives in front of Tuck. It does not offer any insight into
whether Sergeant Burns and Lewis had “an agreement. . . to injure another by unlawful action.”
Hensley v. Gassman, 693 F.3d 681, 695 (6th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). Instead, Tuck’s
declaration contends that Sergeant Burns confessed the “real reason” for Plaintiff’s transfer shortly
after it occurred [Doc. 67-2 p. 9]. It is mere speculation that Defendant Lewis shared that
motivation, or that there was an agreement between the two. While Plaintiff points to the
relationship between Defendant Lewis and Sergeant Burns and their knowledge of his protected
activities as evidence that they conspired together to deprive him of his rights, such allegations,
while hinting at the possibility of a conspiracy, do not contain “enough factual matter (taken as
true) to suggest that an agreement was made.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. Instead, this kind of
“speculation and conjecture are insufficient to establish the existence of an agreement” for a
conspiracy claim. Regets v. City of Plymouth, 568 F. App’x 380, 391 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Moore
v. City of Paducah, 890 F.2d 831, 834 (6th Cir. 1989)).
Because Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim would not withstand a motion to dismiss, it is futile
to allow Plaintiff further amendment to include it, and Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. See
Griffith v. Whitesell, No. 3:08-0385, 2008 WL 3852415, *5 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 14, 2008) (“The

5
Case 1:22-cv-00125-SKL Document 71 Filed 05/24/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 813

Court is not required to allow amendments that assert obviously frivolous claims or claims that
could not withstand a motion to dismiss.” (citing Neighborhood Dev. Corp., 632 F.2d at 23)).
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time [Doc. 69] is

GRANTED nunc pro tunc to the date of filing, and his motion to further amend his amended
complaint [Doc. 67] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/Susan K. Lee
SUSAN K. LEE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
Case 1:22-cv-00125-SKL Document 71 Filed 05/24/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 814