Loyde v. Tennessee
| Decision Date | 13 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:15-cv-2528-JDT-dkv,2:15-cv-2528-JDT-dkv |
| Parties | ED HENRY LOYDE, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, ET AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
On August 7, 2015, Plaintiff Ed Henry Loyde ("Loyde"), who is confined in the Hardeman County Correctional Facility ("HCCF") in Whiteville, Tennessee, filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions that occurred at the West Tennessee State Penitentiary ("WTSP") in Henning, Tennessee. (ECF No. 1.) After following the Order of this Court, on August 20, 2015 Loyde filed and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 4 & 5.) On August 21, 2015, the Court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assessed the civil filing fee pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)-(b). (ECF No. 6.). On December 9, 2015, Loyde filed a motion to amend the complaint to add Dr. Lynette Williams as a defendant. (ECF No. 9.) On April 20, 2016, Loyde filed a motion to file a second amended complaint that is intended to supplement, rather than supersede the prior pleadings. (ECF No. 15.) Loyde's motions to amend are GRANTED. Pursuant to the complaint and amended complaints, the Clerk shall record the Defendants as the State of Tennessee; former Tennessee Department of Correction ("TDOC") Commissioner Derrick Schofield; former WTSP Warden James Holloway; TDOC Doctor Lynette Williams; WTSP Unit Manager Brent Williams; Correctional Officer ("C/O") First Name Unknown ("FNU") Ross; Centurian Health Care "(CHC"); Lauderdale County Sheriff Steve Sanders; Marva Temple, Mayor of the City of Ripley; TDOC Commissioner of Operations Jason Woodall; and Jon Pavletic, Mayor of the City of Henning.1 All of the individual Defendants are sued in both their individual and official capacities.
Loyde alleges that on August 6, 2014, he was severely beaten by fellow inmate Brandon Moore ("Moore") in WTSP Unit 3-A-24. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Defendant Ross came by the cell while the assault was occurring, and Loyde asked Ross to let him out and began kicking on the door because of the assault; however, Defendant Ross "went about his business." (Id.) Moore continued beating Loyde until C/O Parker, who is not named as a defendant, saw Loyde bleeding and called a code. (Id.) Loyde contends that at first, he had to fake having a seizure because of the beatings. (Id.) Loyde further alleges that he had a "busted head" and that his eyes were 'bleeding out of both sockets." (Id. at 2.)
Loyde contends that the Lauderdale County Hospital made an imaging disk of his face and transferred Loyde to Regional One Hospital in Memphis because they did not have the equipment to treat him. (Id. at 3.) After he was admitted to the emergency room, Loyde was told by the doctor that he had a broken eye socket along with a cracked sinus canal. (Id.) Loyde was seen by an eye specialist the next morning who looked at the disk and explained to Loyde that he needed an operation to put a plate in his face to fix the sinus canal and eye socket and thatif it was not fixed he would suffer a sinus infection. (Id.) Loyde alleges these injuries make it difficult to breathe, cause his sinuses to drain into his stomach, and cause his nose to run constantly. (Id. at 2-3.)
Loyde alleges that he has been to the TDOC's Deberry Special Needs Facility in Nashville, Tennessee, but nothing was done because the WTSP medical department failed to send the imaging disk with his medical records. (Id. at 3.) Loyde contends that he now has sinus headaches every day and snores. (Id.) He requests that the State of Tennessee be required to provide him with an operation and that he be awarded monetary damages. (Id. at 4.)
In his second amended complaint, Loyde asserts claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985(2)-(3), and 1986 and pursuant to Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12132. (ECF No. 15-1 at 1.) He includes allegations against a number of additional Defendants. Loyde alleges that Defendants Schofield, Woodall, and Holloway failed to address and to further investigate or discipline the grievances filed by Loyde, which complained of Defendant Ross's actions and the failure to get Loyde necessary medical care. (Id. at 8-9.)
Loyde contends that he was seen by Defendant Lynette Williams after the incident and requested medical treatment and care; however, Defendant Lynette Williams failed to provide medical treatment and care to Loyde. (Id. at 9.)
In addition to the previous allegations against Defendant Ross, Loyde further alleges that Defendant Ross, along with an unknown Unit Manager, "spontaneously" moved Moore into the cell with Loyde "to have him segregated from population as a result of his convicting offense." (Id. at 10.) As background, Loyde alleges that prior to the incident Moore told him why Defendant Ross moved Moore into Loyde's cell and that Moore was going to "beat [him] upbecause of [Loyde's] charges." (Id. at 15; see also Ex. B at 2, ECF No. 15-4.)2 After the assault, Loyde told Defendant Ross that he wanted Moore charged with aggravated assault. (Id.) Loyde blames the unit manager for allowing his charges to be put in the hands of "untrained officer, staff, employee and etc." (Id., see also Exs. A-H.) Further, Defendant Ross allegedly stood at the cell door and failed to intervene until he felt the beating was "enough." (Id. at 19.)
Loyde contends that CHC failed to train its staff and employees properly, resulting in Loyde being exposed to a risk of serious bodily harm and injuries. (Id. at 11.) Similarly, Loyde contends that Defendants Sanders, Temple, and Pavletic failed to address the acts of other Defendants, failed to investigate Loyde's claims, and failed to provide the proper training. (Id. at 11-12.)
Loyde asserts that the medical authorities, staff, and employees "deemed that Loyde was not entitled to the medical liberty and property interests for which he request professional medical treatment." (Id. at 13.) Further, he was denied his "administrative" Due Process rights by the failure to treat him as well as the failure to prosecute Moore. (Id.) Loyde argues that the Defendants' acts and conduct constitute civil conspiracy, fraud, and fraudulent misrepresentation. (Id.)
Loyde contends that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to protect him from Moore, failing to provide him with the requested medical treatment, and failing to provide humane conditions of confinement. (Id. at 17-18.) Additionally, Loyde alleges that Defendant Sheriff Sanders failed to investigate the "criminal incident" that occurred at WTSP and failed to seek indictments against inmate Moore. (Id. at 22.)
Loyde's second amended complaint seeks a judgment award of $2.5 million. (Id. at 29-30.)
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 Rule 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). Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 n.3 ( ).
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 ( 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.
"Pro se complaints are to be held 'to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,' and...
To continue reading
Request your trial