Shabazz v. Centurion, Private Health Care Provider under contract with the Tennessee Department of Correction; (hereinafter "TDOC") et al

Filing 154

ORDER finding as moot 90 Motion for Protective Order, 105 Motion to Supplement Second Motion to Compel, 111 Motion for Summary Judgment, 119 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, 127 Motion for Reconsideration, 128 Motion for Reconsideration. Denying 130 Motion for Sanctions, 140 Motion to Alter or Amend, 142 Motion to Reopen Discovery, 143 Motion to Amend. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr. on 2/9/2022. (Mays, Samuel)

Case 1:17-cv-01051-SHM-cgc Document 154 Filed 02/09/22 Page 1 of 10

PageID 1896

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
OMOWALE ASHANTI SHABAZZ,
a/k/a FRED DEAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CENTURION OF TENNESSEE, LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 17-cv-1051

ORDER
This is a prisoner’s rights case brought by pro se
Plaintiff Omowale Ashanti Shabazz pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
At the time of filing, Shabazz was incarcerated at the
Northwest Correctional Complex (“NWCX”) in Tiptonville,
Tennessee.

Defendants Centurion of Tennessee, LLC

(“Centurion”) and Cortez Tucker (collectively, “Defendants”)
are the two remaining Defendants.

Before the Court are

Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order, Motions for
Reconsideration, and Motion for Summary Judgment and Shabazz’s
Motion to Supplement his Second Motion to Compel, Motion for
Sanctions, Motion to Reopen Discovery, Motions to Amend the
Court’s Order, and Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to
the Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 90, 105, 111, 112,

Case 1:17-cv-01051-SHM-cgc Document 154 Filed 02/09/22 Page 2 of 10

119, 127, 128, 130, 140, 142, 143.)

PageID 1897

For the following reasons,

Shabazz’s Motion to Reopen Discovery, Motion for Sanctions, and
Motions to Amend are DENIED.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment, Motion for Protective Order, and Motions for
Reconsideration and Shabazz’s Motion for Extension of Time and
Motion to Supplement his Second Motion to Compel are DENIED as
moot.
I.

Background
In 1995, Shabazz entered the custody of the Tennessee

Department of Correction (“TDOC.”)

On March 20, 2017, Shabazz

filed suit against Centurion and TDOC Commissioner Tony Parker,
TDOC Medical Director Kenneth Williams, TDOC Associate Medical
Director Kenneth L. Wiley, NWCX Warden Michael Parris, and
Tucker in their individual and official capacities.
1.)

(ECF No.

Shabazz alleged that Defendants had violated his Eighth

Amendment rights because of Defendants’ inadequate diagnosis,
assessment, and treatment of his hepatitis.

He sought

injunctive and declaratory relief and damages.

(ECF No. 1.)

Shabazz moved to amend his Complaint on September 29,
2017.

(ECF No. 5.)

On March 22, 2018, the Court granted the

Motion and screened Shabazz’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b).

(ECF No. 6.)

The Court dismissed Shabazz’s claims

for monetary damages against Defendants Parker, Williams,
Wiley, Parris, and Tucker in their official capacities.
2

(Id.)

Case 1:17-cv-01051-SHM-cgc Document 154 Filed 02/09/22 Page 3 of 10

PageID 1898

The Court also dismissed Shabazz’s declaratory and injunctive
relief claims because they were duplicative of a class action
for which he qualified as a member.

See Graham, et al. v.

Parker, et al., No. 3:16-cv-01954 (M.D. Tenn.).
On June 12, 2018, Defendant Parker filed a Motion to
Dismiss.

(ECF Nos. 33, 34.)

on November 19, 2018.

Shabazz filed a Motion to Compel

(ECF No. 44.)

On January 30, 2019,

Shabazz filed a Second Motion to Amend the Complaint.
49.)

(ECF No.

The Court granted Parker’s Motion to Dismiss and denied

Shabazz’s Motion to Amend because the proposed amendments would
be futile.

(ECF No. 52.)

Compel on March 29, 2019.

Shabazz supplemented his Motion to
(ECF No. 54.)

On April 5, 2019,

Defendants Wiley and Williams filed a Motion to Dismiss.
No. 55.)

(ECF

Shabazz filed a Third Motion to Amend the Complaint

on April 23, 2019.

(ECF No. 61.)

On June 13, 2019, Shabazz

petitioned the Court for an independent, expert physical
examination to assist his claims. (ECF No. 72.)
a Second Motion to Compel on July 15, 2019.

Shabazz filed

(ECF No. 76.)

Defendant Parris filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 3,
2019.

(ECF No. 87.)

On September 23, 2019, Shabazz filed a

Motion to Withdraw the Third Motion to Amend the Complaint,
which the Court granted.

(ECF Nos. 95, 138.)

On September 6, 2019, Centurion and Tucker moved for a
protective order.

(ECF No. 90.)
3

Shabazz filed a Fourth Motion

Case 1:17-cv-01051-SHM-cgc Document 154 Filed 02/09/22 Page 4 of 10

to Amend the Complaint on September 23, 2019.

PageID 1899

(ECF No. 96.)

On October 18, 2019, Shabazz moved to supplement his Second
Motion to Compel.

(ECF No. 105.)

Defendants Centurion and

Tucker filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on February 8,
2020.

(ECF Nos. 111, 112.)

Amended Complaint.

The Motion responded to Shabazz’s

On February 13, 2020, Shabazz moved for an

extension of time to respond.

(ECF No. 119.)

He opposed the

Motion for Summary Judgment on March 12, 2020.

(ECF No. 120.)

On March 24, 2020, Magistrate Judge Charmiane G. Claxton
granted in part and denied in part Shabazz’s First Motion to
Compel. (ECF No. 121.)

On April 3, 2020, Magistrate Judge

Claxton granted in part and denied in part Shabazz’s First
Supplemental Motion to Compel.

(ECF No. 125.)

asked the Court to reconsider those Orders.
128.)

Defendants

(ECF Nos. 127,

Shabazz moved for sanctions against Defendants and to

compel Defendants to comply with the Orders. (ECF No. 130.)
On May 29, 2020, the Court granted Defendants Williams,
Wiley, and Parris’s Motions to Dismiss, and granted Shabazz’s
Fourth Motion to Amend only as to his claims for monetary
damages against Centurion and Tucker.

(ECF No. 138.)

The

Court denied Shabazz’s request for a physical examination.
(Id.)

Shabazz has since filed two Motions to Amend the Court’s

Order and a Motion to Reopen Discovery.

4

(ECF Nos. 140, 142,

Case 1:17-cv-01051-SHM-cgc Document 154 Filed 02/09/22 Page 5 of 10

143.)

Defendants oppose those Motions.

PageID 1900

(ECF Nos. 145, 146,

147, 148.)
II.

Analysis
A.

Motions to Amend

Under Rule 54(b), an order “that adjudicates fewer than all
the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the
parties . . . may be revised at any time before the entry of
final judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’
rights and liabilities.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

Local Rule

7.3(b) states:
A motion for revision must specifically show: (1) a
material difference in fact or law from that which was
presented
to
the
Court
before
entry
of
the
interlocutory order for which revision is sought, and
that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party
applying for revision did not know such fact or law at
the time of the interlocutory order; or (2) the
occurrence of new material facts or a change of law
occurring after the time of such order; or (3) a
manifest failure by the Court to consider material
facts or dispositive legal arguments that were
presented to the Court before such interlocutory
order.
LR 7.3(b).
Shabazz asks the Court to amend its May 29, 2020 Order to
add

Dr.

Asher

Turney

as

a

defendant.

Shabazz

relies

allegations in his Fourth Motion to Amend the Complaint.

on
The

Court, in its May 29, 2020 Order, declined to add Turney after
considering Shabazz’s allegations in the Fourth Motion to Amend.

5

Case 1:17-cv-01051-SHM-cgc Document 154 Filed 02/09/22 Page 6 of 10

(ECF No. 138.)
adding Turney.

PageID 1901

Shabazz has offered no new justification for
The Motion to Amend to add Turney is DENIED.

Shabazz seeks amendment of the Court’s Order dismissing
Defendant

Parker

(ECF

No.

52)

and

its

May

29,

2020

dismissing Defendants Williams, Wiley, and Parris.
138.)

Order

(ECF No.

The Court dismissed those Defendants because Shabazz had

failed to adequately allege that they were personally involved
in Shabazz’s medical treatment.

(ECF Nos. 52, 138.)

Shabazz

argues that the “Sixth Circuit has long held that officials may
be held liable under § 1983 for failing to carry out a statutorily
imposed duty, abandoning the specific duties of their position,
failing to do their job, and for failing to have adequate
policies or procedures.”

(ECF No. 140.)

The Court dismissed

the former Defendants because Shabazz failed to allege a basis
for liability other than respondeat superior.
138.);

see

(“Government

Ashcroft
officials

v.

Iqbal,

may

not

(ECF Nos.

556

U.S.

662,

676

be

held

liable

52,

(2009)

for

the

unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of
respondeat superior.”). The Motion to Amend also fails to allege
another basis for liability.

The Motion to Amend the Court’s

Orders dismissing Defendants Parker, Williams, Wiley, and Parris
is DENIED.
Shabazz argues that the Court erred in denying his request
for an independent physical examination under Federal Rule of
6

Case 1:17-cv-01051-SHM-cgc Document 154 Filed 02/09/22 Page 7 of 10

Civil Procedure 35.

PageID 1902

In denying that request, the Court noted

that “Shabazz is no longer in prison, and he is not indigent.”
(ECF No. 138.)

Shabazz argues that he is in fact indigent

because he is in a halfway house and is unemployed.

Even if

Shabazz were indigent, his indigence would not be a basis for
altering the Court’s Order.
order

a

party

whose

Rule 35 gives courts discretion to

mental

or

physical

condition

is

controversy to submit to a physical or mental examination.
R. Civ. P. 35(a)(1).

in

Fed.

That Shabazz is indigent does not affect

the Court’s discretionary decision to deny his Rule 35 Motion.
The Motion to Amend the May 29, 2020 Order denying Shabazz’s
request for a physical examination is DENIED.
Shabazz’s Motions to Amend are DENIED.
B.

Discovery Motions

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 affords a trial judge
broad discretion to curtail discovery.

W. Am. Ins. Co. v. Potts,

1990 WL 104034, at *2 (6th Cir. July 25, 1990);

see Chrysler

Corp. v. Fedders Corp., 643 F.2d 1229, 1240 (6th Cir. 1981)
(finding it “well established that the scope of discovery is
within the sound discretion of the trial court”).
Shabazz moves to reopen discovery because his Fourth Motion
to Amend the Complaint alleges that he did not have adequate
opportunity for discovery.

The Court granted Shabazz’s Fourth

Motion to Amend to allow only specific claims for monetary
7

Case 1:17-cv-01051-SHM-cgc Document 154 Filed 02/09/22 Page 8 of 10

PageID 1903

damages against Defendants Centurion and Tucker.

(ECF No. 138.)

The

of

Court

considered

Shabazz’s

allegations

discovery, but denied amendment on that ground.
no other reason to reopen discovery.

inadequate

Shabazz offers

The Motion to Reopen

Discovery is DENIED.
There are several pending discovery motions.

Defendants

seek a protective order because of “Plaintiff’s harassment and
repetitive discovery requests.”

(ECF No. 90.)

They also ask

the Court to reconsider two discovery Orders.

(ECF Nos. 127,

128.)

Shabazz moves to supplement his Second Motion to Compel.

(ECF No. 105.)

Discovery is closed.

Defendants’ Motions for

Reconsideration and Motion for Protective Order and Shabazz’s
Motion to Supplement his Second Motion to Compel are DENIED as
moot.
Shabazz seeks sanctions against Defendants under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 37.

(ECF No. 130.)

He asks that

Defendants comply with discovery orders and that they pay all
costs associated with bringing the motion for sanctions and
answering

interrogatories.

(Id.)

Discovery

is

closed.

Defendants have filed two pending Motions for Reconsideration of
the discovery orders.
circumstances.

Sanctions are not appropriate under these

Shabazz’s Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.

8

Case 1:17-cv-01051-SHM-cgc Document 154 Filed 02/09/22 Page 9 of 10

C.

PageID 1904

Motion for Summary Judgment

Defendants Centurion and Tucker filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment on February 8, 2020.

(ECF Nos. 111, 112.)

When

Defendants filed their Motion, the Amended Complaint was the
operative complaint.

(ECF No. 96.)

The Court has since granted

Shabazz’s Fourth Motion to Amend to add specific claims for
monetary damages against Centurion and Tucker.

“An amended

complaint supersedes an earlier complaint for all purposes.”

In

re Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litig., 731 F.3d 586, 589
(6th Cir. 2013) (citing Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Commc'ns,
Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n. 4, (2009)).

The operative complaint

is now Shabazz’s Amended Complaint with the amended claims for
monetary

damages

against

Centurion

and

Tucker

contained

in

paragraphs 242, 244, 245, and 246 of the Fourth Motion to Amend.
(ECF No. 96-2.)

Defendants Centurion and Tucker’s Motion for

Summary Judgment is DENIED as moot.

Defendants have 14 days

from the date of this Order to file a motion for summary judgment
addressing

the

operative

Complaint.

Shabazz’s

Motion

for

Extension of Time to File Response to the Motion for Summary
Judgment is DENIED as moot.

Shabazz may respond if Defendants

file a motion for summary judgment addressing the operative
complaint.

9

Case 1:17-cv-01051-SHM-cgc Document 154 Filed 02/09/22 Page 10 of 10

PageID 1905

III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Shabazz’s Motion to Reopen
Discovery, Motion for Sanctions, and Motions to Amend are
DENIED.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion for

Protective Order, and Motions for Reconsideration and Shabazz’s
Motion for Extension of Time and Motion to Supplement his
Second Motion to Compel are DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED this 9th day of February, 2022.

/s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr.
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10