Walker v. State of Tennessee

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT & ORDER re 10 MOTION to Reopen Case. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 5/30/17. Consequently, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A reo pening of this case, therefore, would be futile. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion to reopen is hereby DENIED for that reason. An appeal of this ruling would not be taken in good faith. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445-446 (1962) . Therefore, the plaintiff is NOT certified to pursue an appeal of the ruling in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Nevertheless, should the plaintiff decide to file a notice of appeal, she must either pay the Clerk of Court the full appe llate filing fee of five hundred five dollars ($505) or submit a new application to proceed in forma pauperis with a certified copy of her inmate trust account statement for the previous six month period. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(am)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

SHIRLEY WALKER
Plaintiff,
v.
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION, et al.
Defendants.

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

No. 3:16-cv-3268
Judge Trauger

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On December 16, 2016, the plaintiff initiated this action with the pro se filing of a complaint
(Docket Entry No. 1) brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (Docket Entry No. 2).
The application was deficient in that it did not include a certified six month statement from
the custodian of plaintiff’s inmate trust account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Therefore, an order (Docket
Entry No. 3) was entered granting the plaintiff thirty (30) days in which to submit either the full
filing fee or the aforementioned certified statement.
When the Court did not receive the filing fee or a certified statement from the custodian of
plaintiff’s inmate trust account within the specified period of time, an order (Docket Entry No. 6)
was entered denying the application to proceed in forma pauperis. The plaintiff was assessed the
filing fee, a schedule was set up for the collection of the filing fee from the plaintiff’s inmate trust
account, and this action was dismissed for failure to comply with the instructions of the Court and
1

for want of prosecution. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1997), abrogated on
other grounds, LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013).
Presently before the Court is a letter (Docket Entry No. 10) from the plaintiff. In the letter,
the plaintiff avers that she timely sent to the Court a certified trust fund statement. She speculates
that, because the statement did not include her case number, it was probably lost. Id. at pg. 1.
Attached to the letter are copies of the plaintiff’s complaint (id. at pgs. 14-20) and application to
proceed in forma pauperis (id. at pgs. 8-13). The plaintiff asks the Court to “re-file” these pleadings.
Id. at pg. 2. In light of plaintiff’s request, the Court construes her letter as a motion to reopen the
instant action.
Before a § 1983 prisoner action can proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is obliged to review
the complaint to determine whether it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2).
The plaintiff brings this action against the Tennessee Department of Correction; the
Tennessee Prison for Women in Nashville; the Mark Luttrell Correctional Center in Memphis; Tony
Parker, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction; Lakeisha Barbee, Health
Administrator for the Women’s Therapeutic Residential Center in Henning, Tennessee;
MHM/Centurion, the health care provider at both the Tennessee Prison for Women and the Mark
Luttrell Correctional Center; and two physicians at the Mark Luttrell Correctional Center; seeking
injunctive relief and damages.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, post-traumatic
stress disorder, a bi-polar disorder and chronic depression. Docket Entry No. 10 at pg. 18. The
plaintiff claims “that her medical treatment has not been appropriately administered and that she has
2

suffered permanent damage as a result of improper drug prescription as well as improper removal
of the same medication.” Id.
In order to establish a claim for relief under § 1983, the plaintiff must plead and prove that
the defendants, while acting under color of state law, deprived her of some right or privilege secured
by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1913 (1981).
The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501
U.S. 294 (1991). Under the holding of Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,104 (1976), “deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction
of pain’ .... proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.” However, not every claim by a prisoner that she
has not received adequate medical care states a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. 429 U.S. at
105. To state a cognizable medical claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently
harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. It is only such indifference that
can offend “evolving standards of decency” in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id.
In this case, the plaintiff acknowledges that she has been receiving treatment for her mental
health problems. She has identified two doctors (Dr. K. Colbert and Dr. Jeffers) as defendants who
have prescribed medication for her maladies. Nowhere in the complaint do the plaintiff’s factual
allegations suggest that the defendants have been deliberately indifferent to her mental health needs.
Rather, this dispute arises over the adequacy of the care provided the plaintiff.
When a prisoner has received some medical attention and her claim is a challenge to the
adequacy of the care provided, federal courts are generally reluctant to second guess medical
judgments and constitutionalize claims which sound in state tort law. Hill v.Jones, 211 F.3d 1269
(6th Cir.2000). Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional tort merely because the victim
3

is a prisoner. Estelle, supra at 429 U.S. 105-106. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to describe
conduct resulting in a violation of federal law. Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693, 703 (6th
Cir.2001).
Absent a violation of federal law, the plaintiff is unable to prove every element of a § 1983
cause of action. Consequently, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A reopening of this case, therefore, would be futile. Accordingly, the
plaintiff’s motion to reopen is hereby DENIED for that reason.
An appeal of this ruling would not be taken in good faith. Coppedge v. United States, 369
U.S. 438, 445-446 (1962). Therefore, the plaintiff is NOT certified to pursue an appeal of the ruling
in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
Nevertheless, should the plaintiff decide to file a notice of appeal, she must either pay the
Clerk of Court the full appellate filing fee of five hundred five dollars ($505) or submit a new
application to proceed in forma pauperis with a certified copy of her inmate trust account statement
for the previous six month period. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)
It is so ORDERED.

____________________________
Aleta A. Trauger
United States District Judge

4