Baxter v. Corizon Health, Inc. et al

Filing 9

ORDER PARTIALLY DISMISSING COMPLAINT, DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (ECF No. 3 ), AND DIRECTING THAT PROCESS BE ISSUED AND SERVED ON DEFENDANT COLLINS. Signed by Judge James D. Todd on 9/28/15. (Todd, James)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
_____________________________________________________________________________
TIMOTHY A BAXTER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CORIZON HEALTH INC., et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:14-cv-1347-JDT-egb

ORDER PARTIALLY DISMISSING COMPLAINT,
DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (ECF No. 3.),
AND DIRECTING THAT PROCESS BE ISSUED
AND SERVED ON DEFENDANT COLLINS

On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff Timothy A. Baxter (“Baxter”), who is confined as an
inmate of Northwest Correctional Complex (“NWCX”), in Tiptonville, Tennessee, filed a pro se
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 accompanied by a motion asking leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2). On December 23, 2014, this Court issued an order directing
Baxter to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) or pay the $400 civil filing fee. (ECF No. 5.)
After receiving the appropriate documentation , in an order issued January 20, 2015, the Court
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assessed the civil filing fee pursuant to the Prison
Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)-(b). (ECF No. 7.) The Clerk
shall record the defendants as Corizon Health Inc. (“Corizon Health”), Corizon Inc. (“Corizon”),
Corizon Health and Corizon National Medical Director Dr. Carl Keldie, Corizon Health Chief
Nursing Officer Becky Pinney, Corizon Health Chief Nursing Officer Amanda Collins, Corizon

Health and Corizon Medical Director Samantha Phillips, the State of Tennessee,1 Tennessee
Department of Corrections (“TDOC”) Commissioner Derrick Schofield, TDOC Deputy
Commissioner of Operations for NCWX Catherine Posey, TDOC Deputy Commissioner of
Operations for NCWX Jim Thrasher, TDOC Commissioner of Operations for NCWX Reuben
Hodge, TDOC Director of Health Services for NWCX Donna K. White, TDOC Medical Director
of Clinical Services for NWCX Lester Lewis, NWCX Warden Henry Lee Steward, NWCX
Assistant Warden Brad Poole, and NCWX Associate Warden of Operations Melvin Tirey.
I. THE COMPLAINT
Baxter states that he has a medical history of chronic, severe joint pain, back pain, and
sepsis in the upper jaw area which has caused extreme weight loss and headaches that
Defendants have refused to treat through deliberate indifference, failure to have policies for
medical treatment, and a failure to hire and train appropriate staff. (Comp. at 12, ECF No. 1.)
Baxter alleges that the corrections and medical staff at NWCX were aware of his medical
problems. (Id.) In 2012, Baxter received steroid injections to his elbow and shoulder to manage
his joint pain; however, these treatments have stopped. (Id.) The staff discontinued any pain
management care after October 2013, causing Baxter to lose sleep and suffer further pain. (Id.)
Since October 2013, Baxter has over twenty-seven requests for treatment for which he received
ibuprofen, but not an opportunity for a rheumatologist or orthopedic specialist to evaluate his
pain. (Id.) Baxter alleges that he “has developed sepsis in his upper jaw, an area that reoccurs
on a monthly basis which,” he concludes has resulted in the loss of 50 pounds. The only

1

Plaintiff named the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) as a defendant.
Governmental departments, divisions, and buildings are not suable entities. Therefore, the Court
construes those claims against the State of Tennessee. See generally Hafer v. Melo, 502 U. S. 21
(1991). The Clerk is directed to terminate the TDOC as a defendant and add the State of
Tennessee as Defendant.

2

treatment Defendants have offered Baxter was physical therapy; however, due to a conflict he
was unable to go and no further appointments have been scheduled. On December 11, 2014
Baxter states he was called to the clinic for his three month chronic care visit. (Id.) He was seen
by Defendant Collins who stated said she would keep an eye on his weight, but offered no tests
or evaluations. (Id.) Baxter states that he has only received palliative treatment for his serious
medical conditions. (Id.)
Baxter has suffered severe physical and emotional injury. (Id. at 16.) He seeks punitive
and compensatory damages. (Id.) At the time of filing his complaint, Baxter also filed a Motion
for Preliminary Injunctive Relief requesting the court enjoin Defendant Corizon Health, Keldie,
and Schofield from applying a custom or practice that has prevented him from receiving
adequate medical care.
II. ANALYSIS
A.

Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 3)
Defendants Corizon Health, Keldie, and Schofield, are sued in their individual and

official capacities for prospective injunctive relief. See Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 160
(1908). Because the complaint and the amended complaint fail to specify the nature of that
relief, Baxter’s claims against those parties are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). 
B.

Screening and Standard
The Court is required to screen prisoner complaints and to dismiss any complaint, or any

portion thereof, if the complaint—
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

3

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
In assessing whether the complaint in this case states a claim on which relief may be
granted, the standards under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), as stated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
677-79 (2009), and in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007), are applied.
Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). “Accepting all well-pleaded allegations in
the complaint as true, the Court ‘consider[s] the factual allegations in [the] complaint to
determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.’” Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380,
383 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681) (alteration in original). “[P]leadings that . . .
are no more than conclusions . . . are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal
conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual
allegations.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 n.3 (“Rule 8(a)(2) still
requires a ‘showing,’ rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief. Without some
factual allegation in the complaint, it is hard to see how a claimant could satisfy the requirement
of providing not only ‘fair notice’ of the nature of the claim, but also ‘grounds’ on which the
claim rests.”).
“A complaint can be frivolous either factually or legally. Any complaint that is legally
frivolous would ipso facto fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Hill, 630 F.3d
at 470 (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 328-29 (1989)).
Whether a complaint is factually frivolous under §§ 1915A(b)(1) and
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) is a separate issue from whether it fails to state a claim for
relief. Statutes allowing a complaint to be dismissed as frivolous give “judges
not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless
legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s
factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are
clearly baseless.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327, 109 S. Ct. 1827 (interpreting 28
U.S.C. § 1915). Unlike a dismissal for failure to state a claim, where a judge
must accept all factual allegations as true, Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50, a judge
does not have to accept “fantastic or delusional” factual allegations as true in
prisoner complaints that are reviewed for frivolousness. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at
327-28, 109 S. Ct. 1827.

4

Id. at 471.
“Pro se complaints are to be held ‘to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers,’ and should therefore be liberally construed.” Williams, 631 F.3d at 383
(quoting Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004)). Pro se litigants and prisoners
are not exempt from the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As the Sixth
Circuit has explained:
Before the recent onslaught of pro se prisoner suits, the Supreme Court
suggested that pro se complaints are to be held to a less stringent standard than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519
(1972) (per curiam). Neither that Court nor other courts, however, have been
willing to abrogate basic pleading essentials in pro se suits. See, e.g., id. at 521
(holding petitioner to standards of Conley v. Gibson); Merritt v. Faulkner, 697
F.2d 761 (7th Cir.) (duty to be less stringent with pro se complaint does not
require court to conjure up unplead allegations), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 986
(1983); McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16 (1st Cir.1979) (same); Jarrell v. Tisch,
656 F. Supp. 237 (D.D.C. 1987) (pro se plaintiffs should plead with requisite
specificity so as to give defendants notice); Holsey v. Collins, 90 F.R.D. 122
(D. Md. 1981) (even pro se litigants must meet some minimum standards).
Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989); see also Brown v. Matauszak, No. 09-2259,
2011 WL 285251, at *5 (6th Cir. Jan. 31, 2011) (affirming dismissal of pro se complaint for
failure to comply with “unique pleading requirements” and stating “a court cannot ‘create a
claim which [a plaintiff] has not spelled out in his pleading’”) (quoting Clark v. Nat’l Travelers
Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975)) (alteration in original); Payne v. Sec’y of
Treas., 73 F. App’x 836, 837 (6th Cir. 2003) (affirming sua sponte dismissal of complaint
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and stating, “[n]either this court nor the district court is
required to create Payne’s claim for her”); cf. Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004) (“District
judges have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants.”); Young Bok Song v.
Gipson, 423 F. App’x 506, 510 (6th Cir. 2011) (“[W]e decline to affirmatively require courts to
ferret out the strongest cause of action on behalf of pro se litigants. Not only would that duty be
overly burdensome, it would transform the courts from neutral arbiters of disputes into advocates

5

for a particular party. While courts are properly charged with protecting the rights of all who
come before it, that responsibility does not encompass advising litigants as to what legal theories
they should pursue.”).
C.

§ 1983 Claim
Baxter filed his eighteen-page, typed complaint pursuant to actions under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Section 1983 provides:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects,
or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within
the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that
in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in
such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a
declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the
purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the
District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of
Columbia.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) a deprivation
of rights secured by the “Constitution and laws” of the United States (2) committed by a
defendant acting under color of state law. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 150
(1970).
1.

Claims against Defendants in their Official Capacity and State of Tennessee

Baxter sues all Defendants in their official capacity. "[A] suit against a state official in
his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official’s
office.

As such, it is no different from a suit against the State itself." Will v. Mich. Dep’t of

State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (citation omitted). Baxter’s claim against Defendants
Schofield, Posey, Thrasher, Hodge, Lewis, Steward, Poole, and Tirey in their official capacities
is brought against the State of Tennessee, which is a named Defendant. Baxter’s claim against

6

Defendants Keldie, Pinney, Collins and Phillips in their official capacities is brought against
Corizon Health or Corizon, which are named Defendants.
The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "[t]he Judicial
power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity,
commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by
Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." U.S. Const. amend. XI. The Eleventh Amendment
has been construed to prohibit citizens from suing their own states in federal court. Welch v. Tex.
Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 472 (1987); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v.
Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Employees of Dep’t of Pub. Health & Welfare v. Mo.
Dep’t of Pub. Health & Welfare, 411 U.S. 279, 280 (1973); see also Va. Office for Protection &
Advocacy v. Stewart, 131 S. Ct. 1632, 1638 (2011) ("A State may waive its sovereign immunity
at its pleasure, and in some circumstances Congress may abrogate it by appropriate legislation.
But absent waiver or valid abrogation, federal courts may not entertain a private person’s suit
against a State.") (citations omitted). By its terms, the Eleventh Amendment bars all suits,
regardless of the relief sought. Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 100-01. Tennessee has not waived its
sovereign immunity. Tenn. Stat. Ann. § 20-13-102(a). Moreover, a state is not a person within
the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Lapides v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 535 U.S.
613, 617 (2002); Will, 491 U.S. at 71.
2.

Claims against a Private Corporation: Corizon Health and Corizon

The complaint does not allege a viable claim against Corizon Health or Corizon. "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

7

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. 2001). Corizon Health and Corizon "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 Corizon Health or
Corizon, Baxter "must show that a policy or well-settled custom of the company was the
‘moving force’ behind the alleged deprivation" of his rights. Id.
The complaint does not adequately allege that Baxter suffered any injury because of an
unconstitutional policy or custom of Corizon Health or Corizon. The allegation that unspecified
defendants attempted to maximize profits is insufficient to establish that Corizon Health or
Corizon had an unconstitutional policy, that the policy was applied in Baxter's case, and that the
policy was a "moving force" behind the denial of treatment. Jackson v. Corr. Corp. of Am., No.
13-1102-JDT-egb, 2013 WL 3070778, at *4-5 (W.D. Tenn. June 17, 2013); Ezell v. Metro. Gov’t
of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., No. 3:11-0405, 2012 WL 2601940, at *8 (M.D. Tenn. June 6,
2012) (prisoner’s "allegations that the purported policies existed at CMS and that these policies
were directly responsible for his alleged lack of medical care are conclusory and are not
buttressed by any factual allegations. Although the plaintiff speculates that medical care is
denied to inmates by CMS for monetary, non-medical reasons, he provides no factual allegations
supporting this speculation. . . . Further, the plaintiff has not set forth any factual allegations
supporting the conclusion that any such policies were the moving force behind the alleged
deficiencies in his own medical treatment as opposed to being the result of actions of individual

8

actors.

Merely positing a theory of legal liability that is unsupported by specific factual

allegations does not state a claim for relief which survives a motion to dismiss.") (report and
recommendation), adopted, 2012 WL 2601936 (M.D. Tenn. July 5, 2012); Moffat v. Mich. Dep’t
of Corr., Civil Action No. 09-14696, 2010 WL 3906115, at *9 n.11 (E.D. Mich. May 21, 2010)
(allegation that "CMS had a policy of denying treatment in order to maximize profits"
insufficient to survive motion to dismiss without supporting factual allegations) (report and
recommendation), adopted, 2010 WL 3905354 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 27, 2010); Crawford v. Mich.
Dep’t of Corr., No. 2:09-cv-7, 2010 WL 1424246, at *5 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2010) ("Plaintiff
has pleaded no facts supporting his allegation that, pursuant to contract, Plaintiff’s medical
treatments were based upon cost concerns."); see also Broyles v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., No. 081638, 2009 WL 3154241, at *2 (6th Cir. Jan. 23, 2009) (inmate’s "bare allegation of a custom or
policy, unsupported by any evidence, are insufficient to establish entitlement to relief"). The
complaint fails to set forth any facts suggesting that the execution of this alleged policy, rather
than individual malfeasance on the part of medical staff, caused the withholding of treatment.
"In the context of Section 1983 municipal liability, district courts in the Sixth Circuit
have interpreted Iqbal’s standards strictly." Hutchison v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson
Cnty., 685 F. Supp. 2d 747, 751 (M.D. Tenn. 2010). "Merely positing a theory of legal liability
that is unsupported by specific factual allegations does not state a claim for relief . . . ." Ezell,
2012 WL 2601940, at *5. The allegations that unspecified defendants failed "to promulgate and
implement policies to provide appropriate medical care to inmates with serious medical and/or
emergent medical conditions like obvious pain and discomforts associated with a reaction to
prescribed medications" (Compl. at 12, ECF No. 1), and that defendants "had a duty to hire and

9

train competent medical staff" (Id.), are entirely conclusory and are insufficient to identify a
Corizon Health or Corizon policy and tie it to Baxter’s injuries. Ezell, 2012 WL 2601940, at *5. 
3.

Claims against Defendants as Supervisors

Defendants Keldie, Pinney, Collins, and Phillips cannot be held liable because of their
senior management positions at Corizon Health and Corizon, and Defendants Lewis, Steward,
Poole and Tirey cannot be held liable because of their respective positions as TDOC Medical
Director, NWCX Warden, NWCX Deputy Warden and NWCX Associate Warden. Under 42
U.S.C. 1983, "[g]overnment officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of
their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676; see
also Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416, 421 (6th Cir. 1984). Thus, "a plaintiff must plead that
each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own official actions, violated the
Constitution." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676.
There must be a showing that the supervisor encouraged the specific instance
of misconduct or in some other way directly participated in it. At a minimum,
a 1983 plaintiff must show that a supervisory official at least implicitly
authorized, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct
of the offending subordinates.
Bellamy, 729 F.2d at 421 (citation omitted).

A supervisory official who is aware of the

unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates, but fails to act, generally cannot be held
liable in his or her individual capacity. Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567, 575-76 (6th Cir. 2008);
Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725, 751 (6th Cir. 2006); Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d
295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999); Lillard v. Shelby Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 727-28 (6th Cir.
1996). The complaint does not allege that Defendants Lewis, Steward, Poole and Tirey had any
personal involvement in Baxter’s treatment.

10

Even if it were assumed that Defendants Keldie, Pinney, and Phillips had some
responsibility for the policies of Corizon Health and Corizon—which the complaint does not
clearly allege—they cannot be held liable to Baxter for money damages because they were not
personally involved in the events at issue. See Heyerman v. Cnty. of Calhoun, 680 F.3d 642,
647-48 (6th Cir. 2012); Phillips v. Roane Cnty., Tenn., 534 F.3d 531, 544-45 (6th Cir. 2008)
("The Estate’s general allegations that the correctional officers and paramedics were not properly
trained are more appropriately submitted as evidence to support a failure-to-train theory against
the municipality itself, and not the supervisors in their individual capacities. While an individual
supervisor may still be held liable in his or her individual capacity under a failure-to-train theory,
Baxter must point to a specific action of each individual supervisor to defeat a qualified
immunity claim. And because the Estate has not advanced any specific allegations against
Yager, Haggard, or Wright, we dismiss the case against these three defendants.").2
4.

Eighth Amendment Claim for Medical Indifference

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual
punishment. See generally Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991). An Eighth Amendment claim
consists of both objective and subjective components. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834
(1994); Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992); Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298; Williams v. Curtin,
633 F.3d at 383; Mingus v. Butler, 591 F.3d 474, 479-80 (6th Cir. 2010). The objective

2

At most, the policymaking roles of Keldie, Pinney, Collins, and Phillips might support
an award of damages against Corizon or Corizon Health. Harvey v. Campbell Cnty., Tenn., 453
F. App’x 557, 563 (6th Cir. 2011) ("To the extent plaintiffs have adduced evidence supporting
findings that McClellan or Scott was a County policymaker on matters of training and was so
deliberately indifferent to the need for more comprehensive training as to render the training
deficiency a matter of de facto County policy, he would be liable, if at all, in his official capacity,
i.e., rendering the County liable.").

11

component requires that the deprivation be “sufficiently serious.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834;
Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8; Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298.
Under 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 he has not
received adequate medical treatment states a violation of the Eighth Amendment.” Estelle, 429
U.S. at 105. “In order to state a cognizable 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., at 106.
Within the context of Estelle claims, the objective component requires that the medical
need be sufficiently serious. Hunt v. Reynolds, 974 F.2d 734, 735 (6th Cir. 1992). “A medical
need is serious if it is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one
that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s
attention.” Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 575 (10th Cir. 1980) (quoting Laaman v. Helgemoe,
437 F. Supp. 269, 311 (D.N.H. 1977)).
To make out a claim of an Eighth Amendment Estelle violation, a prisoner must plead
facts showing that “prison authorities have denied reasonable requests for medical treatment in
the face of an obvious need for such attention where the inmate is thereby exposed to undue
suffering or the threat of tangible residual injury.” Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 860 (6th
Cir. 1976). The Court clarified the meaning of deliberate indifference in Farmer v. Brennan, as
the reckless disregard of a substantial risk of serious harm; mere negligence will not suffice. Id.
511 U.S. at 835-36.

12

The only defendant Baxter makes specific allegations against is Defendant Collins in that
on December 11, 2014, he saw Defendant Collins for his chronic care treatment and she refused
to perform any tests or evaluations on Baxter despite his sickly condition. (Compl. at 11, ECF
No. 1.) For purposes of screening, Baxter has alleged a plausible claim for violation of the
Eighth Amendment against Defendant Collins.
III. CONCLUSION
The Court DISMISSES Baxter’s complaint against Defendants Corizon Health, Corizon,
Keldie, Pinney, Collins (in her official capacity), Phillips, the State of Tennessee, Schofield,
Catherine Posey, Thrasher, Hodge, White, Lewis. Steward, Poole, and Tirey 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 Collins in her individual capacity on Baxter’s
Eighth Amendment claim for medical indifference.
It is ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process for Defendant Collins and deliver that
process to the U.S. Marshal for service. Service shall be made on Defendant Collins 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 be
advanced by the United States.
It is further ORDERED that Baxter shall serve a copy of every subsequent document he
files in this cause on the attorneys for Defendant Collins or on any unrepresented Defendant.
Baxter shall make a certificate of service on every document filed. Baxter shall familiarize
himself with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules.3

3

A copy of the Local Rules may be obtained from the Clerk. The Local Rules are also
available on the Court’s website at www.tnwd.courts.gov/pdf/content/LocalRules.pdf.

13

Baxter shall promptly notify the Clerk 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

14