Bassham v. Dietz et al

Filing 5

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND ASSESSING $350 FILING FEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLRA, DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, PARTIALLY DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING THAT PROCESS BE ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE REMAINING DEFENDANTS 2 3 . Signed by Judge James D. Todd on 12/11/15. (Todd, James)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMES EDWARD BASSHAM
Plaintiff,

VS.

BERNHARD DIETZ, ET AL.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 15-1272-JDT-egb

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND
ASSESSING $350 FILING FEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLRA,
DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION,
PARTIALLY DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING THAT
PROCESS BE ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE REMAINING DEFENDANTS

On November 9, 2015, Plaintiff James Edward Bassham (“Bassham”), Tennessee
Department of Correction (“TDOC”) prisoner number 322334, an inmate at the Hardeman
County Correctional Facility (“HCCF”) in Whiteville Tennessee, filed a pro se complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.)
The Clerk shall record the Defendants as HCCF Medical Director Dr. Bernhard Dietz, HCCF
Nurse Practitioner Ollie Herron, HCCF Dentist Keith Beard, Centurion Inc., Corrections
Corporation of America (“CCA”), and the State of Tennessee.1 Defendants Dietz, Herron and
Beard are sued in both their individual and official capacities.

1

The Court construes allegations against the TDOC as allegations against the State of
Tennessee. The Clerk is DIRECTED to remove the TDOC as a Defendant and to add the State
of Tennessee.

I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)-(b), a prisoner
bringing a civil action must pay the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).2 Although the
obligation to pay the fee accrues at the moment the case is filed, see McGore v. Wrigglesworth,
114 F.3d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1997), partially overruled on other grounds by LaFountain v. Harry,
716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013), the PLRA provides the prisoner the opportunity to make a
“down payment” of a partial filing fee and pay the remainder in installments. Id. at 604. In this
case, Plaintiff has properly submitted an in forma pauperis affidavit and an inmate trust account
statement, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED in accordance with the terms of the PLRA.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), it is ORDERED that Plaintiff cooperate fully with
prison officials in carrying out this order. It is further ORDERED that the trust account officer
at Plaintiff’s prison shall calculate a partial initial filing fee equal to twenty percent (20%) of the
greater of the average balance in or deposits to Plaintiff’s trust account for the six months
immediately preceding the completion of the affidavit. When the account contains any funds,
the trust account officer shall collect them and pay them directly to the Clerk of the Court. If the
funds in Plaintiff’s account are insufficient to pay the full amount of the initial partial filing fee,
the trust account officer is instructed to withdraw all of the funds in the Plaintiff’s account and
forward them to the Clerk of the Court.

2

Twenty-eight U.S.C. § 1914(a) requires a civil filing fee of $350. However, pursuant to
§ 1914(b), “[t]he clerk shall collect from the parties such additional fees . . . as are prescribed by
the Judicial Conference of the United States.” The Judicial Conference has prescribed an
additional administrative fee of $50 for filing any civil case, except for cases in which the
plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. As the Court is
granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case pursuant to the terms of the PLRA,
Plaintiff is not liable for the additional $50 fee.
2

On each occasion that funds are subsequently credited to Plaintiff’s account the trust
account officer shall immediately withdraw those funds and forward them to the Clerk of Court,
until the initial filing fee is paid in full.
It is further ORDERED that after the initial partial filing fee is fully paid, the trust
account officer shall withdraw from Plaintiff’s account and pay to the Clerk of this Court
monthly payments equal to twenty percent (20%) of all deposits credited to Plaintiff’s account
during the preceding month, but only when the amount in the account exceeds $10, until the
$350 filing fee is paid.
Each time the trust account officer makes a payment to the Court as required by this
order, he shall print a copy of the prisoner’s account statement showing all activity in the account
since the last payment under this order and submit it to the Clerk along with the payment. All
payments and accounts statements shall be sent to:
Clerk, United States District Court, Western District of Tennessee
111 S. Highland Ave., Rm. 262, Jackson, TN 38301
and shall clearly identify Plaintiff’s name and the case number as included on the first page of
this order.
If Plaintiff is transferred to a different prison or released, he is ORDERED to notify the
Court immediately, in writing, of his change of address. If still confined, he shall provide the
officials at the new facility with a copy of this order. If Plaintiff fails to abide by these or any
other requirements of this order, the Court may impose appropriate sanctions, up to and
including dismissal of this action, without any additional notice or hearing by the Court.
The Clerk shall mail a copy of this order to the prison official in charge of prison trust
fund accounts at Plaintiff’s prison. The Clerk is further ORDERED to forward a copy of this

3

order to the Warden of the HCCF to ensure that the custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate trust account
complies with that portion of the PLRA pertaining to the payment of filing fees.
II. The Complaint
In his complaint, Bassham alleges that as a result of an invasive intracranial aneurysm
procedure on April 6, 2015, he suffers severe pain. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) Bassham was prescribed
Ultram, a pain medication. (Id.) After Bassham’s arrival at HCCF on May 8, 2015, the nursing
staff contacted Defendant Dietz to get approval to continue administering the Ultram. (Id.)
Bassham alleges that Defendant Dietz discontinued the Ultram over the phone, without a medical
examination, instead prescribing only Tylenol. (Id.) Bassham was examined by Defendant
Dietz on May 14, 2015, but Defendant Dietz continued to prescribe only Tylenol, explaining that
policy did not permit him to prescribe any stronger pain medication. (Id.) Bassham informed
Defendant Dietz that his body had built up immunity to Tylenol, but Defendant Dietz told
Bassham, “You’re getting Tylenol, that’s it.” (Id. at 5.) On June 25, 2015, Basham was again
seen by Defendant Dietz, who continued to deny Bassham’s request for management of his postsurgical pain. (Id.)
On August 11, 2015, Bassham was taken for a follow-up exam during which his surgeon
stated that he would always have some pain that would require management with pain medicine,
but Bassham contends Defendant Dietz did not comply with the surgeon’s recommendation.
(Id.) Bassham’s grievance number 27237/291437, in which he complained about his need for
stronger pain medication, was deemed resolved on August 20, 2015, with the grievance board
recommending that Bassham be re-evaluated for head pain. (Id.)
After a lockdown at HCCF on September 4, 2015, Bassham did not receive his
medication, including a medication for dizziness, for almost a week, causing him to fall in his

4

cell and suffer a seizure. (Id. at 5.) In response, Bassham was seen by Defendant Herron who
took his vital signs and sent Bassham back to his cell without any further treatment. (Id.)
Bassham was taken to “Medical” on October 23, 2015, but was not immediately seen by
Defendant Dietz despite Defendant Dietz being at HCCF on October 27-29 and despite the
recommendation of the grievance committee in grievance number 23738-291843 that Bassham
should be seen in a timely manner. (Id. at 5-6; Grievance, ECF No. 3-2 at 2.)
On July 2, 2015, Bassham underwent oral surgery and was returned to HCCF with an
order for pain medication. (ECF No. 1 at 7.) Bassham and was told by the evening nurse that
Defendant Beard would see him the next morning. (Id.) However, Bassham did not see
Defendant Beard for a week, during which time he was not given any pain medication. (Id.)
After seeing Defendant Beard, Bassham was still denied pain medication. (Id.) Bassham has not
been scheduled for a post-operative appointment with his oral surgeon. (Id.)
Bassham seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as both compensatory and
punitive damages. (Id. at 11-13.)
III. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
Bassham has filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining
order directing that he be provided appropriate medical care for his various conditions or,
alternatively, that he be transferred to the Lois M. DeBerry Special Needs Facility (“DSNF”).
(ECF No. 3 at 1.) In determining whether to issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary
injunction, a district court must consider the following four factors: “(1) whether the claimant
has demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) whether the claimant will
suffer irreparable injury in the absence of a stay, (3) whether granting the stay will cause
substantial harm to others, and (4) whether the public interest is best served by granting the

5

stay.” Workman v. Bredesen, 486 F.3d 896, 905 (6th Cir. 2007); see also Ne. Ohio Coalition for
the Homeless v. Blackwell, 467 F.3d 999, 1009 (6th Cir. 2006) (same).

“A preliminary

injunction is an extraordinary remedy which should be granted only if the movant carries his or
her burden of proving that the circumstances clearly demand it.” Overstreet v. LexingtonFayette Urban Cnty. Gov’t, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002); see also Leary v. Daeschner, 228
F.3d 729, 739 (6th Cir. 2000) (“the proof required for the plaintiff to obtain a preliminary
injunction is much more stringent than the proof required to survive a summary judgment
motion”).
The conclusory allegations of Bassham’s complaint are insufficient to satisfy the first two
prongs of the preliminary injunctions standard. Bassham has not come forward with admissible
evidence that he has a medical need for additional pain medication, the absence of which
endangers his health. The complaint also contains no details about the additional treatment he
believes is necessary other than a higher level of pain medication.
Additionally, even if Bassham were to establish that Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs, it does not follow that the appropriate remedy would be
a transfer to the DSNF. See, e.g., Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983) (“Just as an
inmate has no justifiable expectation that he will be incarcerated in any particular prison within a
State, he has no justifiable expectation that he will be incarcerated in any particular State.”);
Branham v. Grinage, No. 88-1611, 1989 WL 11070, at *1 (6th Cir. Feb. 10, 1989); Christian v.
Mich. Dep’t of Corr.—Health Servs., No. 12-12936, 2013 WL 607783, at *3 n.3 (E.D. Mich.
Jan. 28, 2013) (report and recommendation), adopted, 2013 WL 607779 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 19,
2013); Skinner v. Unknown Grandson, No. 05-70556, 2006 WL 1997392, at *12 (E.D. Mich.
July 14, 2006). If the Court were to find an Eighth Amendment violation, an appropriate remedy

6

might be an order directing Defendants to provide appropriate treatment for Bassham’s
conditions. However, it would be up to Defendants to decide whether that treatment should be
provided at Bassham’s current prison, the DSNF, or another facility. Therefore, the motion for a
temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction is DENIED.
IV. Analysis of Claims
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.
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 court applies the standards under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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). 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

7

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.
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. 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

8

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 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.”).
Bassham filed his fifteen-page typed complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which
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).
Bassham has no claim against the State of Tennessee. 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
9

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. Code Ann. § 20-13102(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 v. Mich. Dep’t of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).
“The right to adequate medical care is guaranteed to convicted federal prisoners by the
Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment.” Johnson v. Karnes, 398
F.3d 868, 873 (6th Cir. 2005). “A prisoner’s right to adequate medical care ‘is violated when
prison doctors or officials are deliberately indifferent to the prisoner’s serious medical needs.’”
Id. at 874 (quoting Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693, 702 (6th Cir. 2001)); see also Santiago
v. Ringle, 734 F.3d 585, 590 (6th Cir. 2013) (same). “Although the right to adequate medical
care does not encompass the right to be diagnosed correctly, [the Sixth Circuit] has long held that
prison officials who have been alerted to a prisoner’s serious medical needs are under an

10

obligation to offer medical care to such a prisoner.” Johnson, 398 F.3d at 874 (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
The objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim requires that a prisoner have a
serious medical need. Blackmore, 390 F.3d at 895; Brooks v. Celeste, 39 F.3d 125, 128 (6th Cir.
1994). “[A] medical need is objectively 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 readily
recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Blackmore, 390 F.3d at 897 (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted); see also Santiago, 734 F.3d at 590 (same); Johnson, 398 F.3d at
874 (same). Plaintiff alleges that he suffered severe pain resulting from surgical repair of an
intracranial aneurysm and also from oral surgery. Thus, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged an
objectively serious medical condition.
To establish the subjective component of an Eighth Amendment violation, a prisoner
must demonstrate that the official acted with the requisite intent, that is, that he or she had a
“sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Wilson v.
Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302-03 (1991). The plaintiff must show that the prison officials acted with
“deliberate indifference” to a substantial risk that the prisoner would suffer serious harm.
Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; Wilson, 501 U.S. at 303; Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32 (1993);
Woods v. Lecureux, 110 F.3d 1215, 1222 (6th Cir. 1997); Street v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d
810, 814 (6th Cir. 1996); Taylor v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr., 69 F.3d 76, 79 (6th Cir. 1995).
“[D]eliberate indifference describes a state of mind more blameworthy than negligence.”
Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835. Thus,
[a] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for
denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of
and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both
be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk
11

of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference. This approach
comports best with the text of the Eighth Amendment as our cases have
interpreted it. The Eighth Amendment does not outlaw cruel and unusual
“conditions”; it outlaws cruel and unusual “punishments.” An act or omission
unaccompanied by knowledge of a significant risk of harm might well be
something society wishes to discourage, and if harm does result society might
well wish to assure compensation. The common law reflects such concerns when
it imposes tort liability on a purely objective basis. . . . But an official’s failure to
alleviate a significant risk that he should have perceived but did not, while no
cause for commendation, cannot under our cases be condemned as the infliction
of punishment.
Id. at 837-38 (emphasis added; citations omitted); see also Garretson v. City of Madison Heights,
407 F.3d 789, 796 (6th Cir. 2005) (“If the officers failed to act in the face of an obvious risk of
which they should have known but did not, then they did not violate the Fourteenth
Amendment.”).
“‘[T]hat a [medical professional] has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical
condition does not state a valid claim . . . under the Eighth Amendment.’” Dominguez v. Corr.
Med. Servs., 555 F.3d 543, 550 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976)). “The requirement that the official have subjectively perceived a risk of harm and then
disregarded it is meant to prevent the constitutionalization of medical malpractice claims; thus, a
plaintiff alleging deliberate indifference must show more than negligence or the misdiagnosis of
an ailment.” Comstock, 273 F.3d at 703. “When a doctor provides treatment, albeit carelessly or
inefficaciously, to a prisoner, he has not displayed a deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s
needs, but merely a degree of incompetence which does not rise to the level of a constitutional
violation.” Id.; see also Johnson, 398 F.3d at 875 (same). “‘[D]eliberate indifference to a
substantial risk of serious harm to a prisoner is the equivalent of recklessly disregarding that
risk.’” Comstock, 273 F.3d at 703 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 836).

12

The only allegations against Defendant Herron are that she examined Bassham on one
occasion without providing additional medical treatment. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) However, Bassham
does not allege that he suffered any further harm, or that his condition worsened, because of
Defendant Herron’s lack of further treatment. Therefore, the claims against Herron are subect to
dismissal.
With regard to Defendants Dietz, Beard, Centurion and CCA, however, Bassham alleges
that their repeated failures to provide him with adequate pain medication for severe and ongoing
pain, due to an official policy or custom that discourages medical personnel from prescribing any
pain medication other than Tylenol, constitutes deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs. These allegations are sufficient to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment.
V. Conclusion
The Court DISMISSES Bassham’s complaint against the State of Tennessee for failure to
state a claim on which relief can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii) and
1915A(b)(1)-(2). The complaint against Defendant Herron is also DISMISSED for failure to
state a claim on which relief may be granted, pursuant to §§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1).
Process will be issued for Defendants Dietz, Beard, Centurion and CCA on Bassham’s Eighth
Amendment claims for denial of adequate medical care.
It is ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process for Defendants Dietz, Beard, Centurion
and CCA and deliver that process to the U.S. Marshal for service. Service shall be made on
Defendants Dietz and Beard 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. Service on Centurion and CCA shall be made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

13

Procedure 4(h)(1) and Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 4.04(3)-(4) and (10).3 All costs of
service shall by advanced by the United States.
It is further ORDERED that Bassham shall serve a copy of every subsequent document
he files in this cause on the attorneys for Defendants Dietz, Beard, Centurion and CCA or on any
unrepresented Defendant. Bassham shall make a certificate of service on every document filed.
Bassham shall familiarize himself with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local
Rules.4
Bassham 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

3

The registered agent for service of process for both Centurion and CCA is CT
Corporation, 800 S. Gay St., Ste. 2021, Knoxville, TN 37929-9710.
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 www.tnwd.courts.gov/pdf/content/LocalRules.pdf.
14