Taylor v. D.C.S.O. et al

Filing 29

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 21 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Harold Taylor, 15 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Darren Hall (xc:Pro se party by certified mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(JBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
SETH TAYLOR,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff
v.
DARREN HALL, SHERIFF, et al.,
Defendants
TO:

No. 3:17-1359
Chief Judge Crenshaw/Brown

The Honorable Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr.,
Chief United States District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Presently pending in this matter are motions by Sheriff Hall

and Warden Taylor to dismiss all claims against them in their individual
capacities and to substitute the Metropolitan Government of Davidson
County (Metro) as the defendant for any claims against Sheriff Hall or
Warden Taylor in their official capacities (Docket Entries 15 and 21).
For the reasons stated below, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that these
motions be GRANTED and that Metro be listed as the sole defendant in this
case.1
BACKGROUND
The plaintiff filed his complaint on November 11, 2017,
alleging that he suffered from an outbreak of scabies while a prisoner
at the Davidson County Detention Center overseen by Sheriff Hall and
Warden Taylor (Docket Entry 1). The case was subsequently reviewed by the
District Judge for compliance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA) (Docket Entries 4 and 12). 2

1

Metro has now accepted service (DE 28) and will be filing pleadings
within 21 days of that notice.
2

It appears that inadvertently the memorandum that should have
accompanied the order was not filed with the order on November 1, 2017.
It was subsequently filed on June 19, 2018 (Docket Entry 12). Because the

On June 22, 2018, Sheriff Hall filed a motion to dismiss
(Docket Entry 15). In the motion (At footnote 1), Metro acknowledges that
the Metropolitan Government is now a defendant. Likewise, in Warden
Taylor’s motion to dismiss filed on July 20, 2018 (Docket Entry 21 at
footnote 1), he contends that although the Metropolitan Government is now
a defendant, they have not been served.3 The facts of the complaint are
set forth in the District Court’s memorandum (Docket Entry 12 at III) and
will only be briefly summarized here for ease of review. The plaintiff
alleged that beginning on or about October 25, 2017, he was exposed to
scabies while incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Facility in
Nashville, Tennessee. He alleged that when he sought treatment for red
bumps “inflamed with puss” in October of 2016. The nurse prescribed
hydrocortisone cream and told the plaintiff he was experiencing an allergic
reaction to wool. He contended that despite using the cream for weeks, he
received no relief and his symptoms worsened. He alleged that he was
literally scratching his skin off and that he filed several medical
complaints because he could not sleep and

experienced problems urinating

due to the sever itching. He alleged that in December 2016 an outside
physician visited the facility and diagnosed him with scabies. He was then
prescribed pills and isolated from other inmates. He was treated 2 or 3
additional times over the next few weeks for scabies.
The

District

Court

found

that

liberally

construing

the

plaintiff’s pro se complaint that he had sufficiently alleged a Davidson

memorandum was not contemporaneously filed with the order, the fact that
the Court found in its memorandum that the plaintiff had initially stated
non-frivolous 8th Amendment claims against Davidson County, Davidson
County was not formally listed as a defendant, and although Sheriff Hall
and Warden Taylor were served, Metro was not separately served.

Warden Taylor’s motion is improperly captioned as a motion by Sheriff Hall.
2

County policy implemented by the Sheriff and Warden and were responsible
for the plaintiff’s injuries caused by the scabies outbreak. The District
Court noted that what the plaintiff claims are policies may not be policies
and

may

not

have

resulted

in

the

deprivation

of

the

plaintiff’s

constitutional rights. The Court noted that these particulars would be
sorted out during the development of the case.4
LEGAL ANALYSIS
I. Legal Standard. In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the court will “construe the
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept its
allegations as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
plaintiff.” Directv, Inc. V. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007);
Inge v. Rock Fin, Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 619 96th Cir. 2002). The Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure require only that a plaintiff provide “‘a short
and plain statement of the claim’ that will five the defendant fair notice
of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rest.”
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). The court must determine only
whether “the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims,”
not

whether

the

plaintiff

can

ultimately

prove

the

facts

alleged.

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 511 (2002)(quoting Scheuer v.
Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)).
A complaint’s allegations, however, “must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the 5 speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

4

In his complaint at page 5, the plaintiff noted that he would like
to be added to a class action lawsuit involving the outbreak of scabies.
The class action that the plaintiff is undoubtedly referring to is the
case of Snead, et al. v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC, 3:17-cv-0949. Judge
Trauger has certification of the scabies class which is defined to
include all former inmates of the Metro Detention Facility. Since the
plaintiff is still incarcerated, he would not be a member of that class.

3

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). To establish the “facial plausibility”
required to “unlock the doors of discovery,” the plaintiff cannot rely on
“legal conclusions” or “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
of action,” but, instead, the plaintiff must plead “factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79
(2009). “[O]nly a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief
survives a motion to dismiss.” Id. At 1950.
II. Legal Discussion. In both motions, the defendants urge that
the plaintiff has failed to allege enough facts to hold them liable for an
individual claim against them under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (1983). In order to
hold an individual personally liable for a 1983 claim, the plaintiff must
show

that

each

defendant

was

personally

involved

in

the

alleged

constitutional deprivations. “Persons sued in their individual capacities
under § 1983 can be held liable based only on their own unconstitutional
behavior.” Heyerman at 647. Section 1983 liability cannot be premised
solely on the theory of respondeat superior or the right to control
employees. Hays v. Jefferson City, 668 F.2d. 869, 872 (6th Cir. 1982).
Supervisory officials are not liable in their individual capacities unless
they “either encourage the specific incident of misconduct or in some other
way directly participated in it. At a minimum a plaintiff must show that
the official at least implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly
acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of the offending officers.” Hays
v. Jefferson City at 874.
Applying these legal standards to the plaintiff’s complaint, it
is clear that he has failed to sufficiently allege a claim against either
Sheriff Hall or Warden Taylor in their individual capacities. The actual
misconduct alleged is a failure to diagnose and treat by CoreCivic and

4

CoreCivic’s employees. The plaintiff did not sue Core Civic or more
critically the specific CoreCivic employees who failed to treat him.
The plaintiff in his responses to the motions (Docket Entries
18 and 26) fails to point out anything in his complaint that alleges
personal action by either defendant. Allegations that they failed to
properly oversee the medical staff is simply insufficient to hold them
personally liable. Warren v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, 2015 WL
3417844 (M.D. Tenn. 2015).
RECOMMENDATION
As stated above, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the
claims against Sheriff Hall and Warden Taylor in the individual capacities
be DISMISSED with prejudice, and that Metro be substituted as the sole
defendant in this matter for claims against Sheriff Hall and Warden Taylor
in their official capacities.
The parties have fourteen (14) days after being served with a
copy of this Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) to serve and file written
objections to the findings and recommendation proposed herein.

A party

shall respond to the objecting party’s objections to this R&R within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file
specific objections within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this R&R may
constitute a waiver of further appeal.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985).

Entered this 15th day Of January, 2019

/s/
Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

5