Sexton v. Core Civic Inc. of Tenn.

• Decision Date: 17 October 2022
• Docket Number: 3:22-cv-00489
• Parties: HUBERT G. SEXTON, JR. #321012, DENNIS CARROLL #380026, BILLY HOBBS # 232984, JEFFREY BROOKS #443473, Plaintiffs, v. CORE CIVIC INCORPORATED OF TENNESSEE, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

HUBERT G. SEXTON, JR. #321012, DENNIS CARROLL #380026, BILLY HOBBS # 232984, JEFFREY BROOKS #443473, Plaintiffs,
v.
CORE CIVIC INCORPORATED OF TENNESSEE, et al., Defendants.

No. 3:22-cv-00489

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

October 17, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ELI RICHARDSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

This is a pro se civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by four state prisoners at Trousdale Turner Correctional Center (TTCC): Hubert Sexton, Jr., Dennis Carroll, Billy Hobbs, and Jeffrey Brooks. Plaintiffs filed a Complaint (Doc. No. 1), applications to proceed as a pauper (Doc. Nos. 4-7, 10, 12-13), and motions to appoint class counsel (Doc. No. 2), certify a class (Doc. No. 3), and issue a preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 11.) Plaintiff Sexton also filed two motions of his own. (Doc. Nos. 14, 15.) Plaintiffs are suing Core Civic Incorporated of Tennessee (CoreCivic), two CoreCivic executives, ten TTCC officials, and two Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) contract monitors. This case is before the Court for initial review. For the following reasons, the case will be referred to the Magistrate Judge for further development, and Defendants that remain after this review must respond to the preliminary injunction motion.

I. APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED AS A PAUPER

Inmates may bring a civil suit without prepaying the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Prisoners who file a case together split the fees and costs for that case proportionally.

1

(Doc. No. 9 at 1-2 (citing In re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1137-38 (6th Cir. 1997).) The total cost to file a civil case is $402, including a $350 filing fee and a $52 administrative fee, but the administrative fee is waived for persons granted pauper status. 28 U.S.C. § 1914. And so, in a case filed by four prisoners, each non-pauper prisoner is responsible for $100.50 ($402 divided by four), and each prisoner granted pauper status is responsible for $87.50 ($350 divided by four).

Each Plaintiff has now filed a signed application to proceed as a pauper with a certified trust account statement, as required by statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). These applications show that each Plaintiff cannot pay his share of the filing cost without undue hardship. (Doc. No. 4 at 3 (Plaintiff Sexton); Doc. No. 5 at 2, Doc. No. 12 (Plaintiff Carroll); Doc. No. 6 at 2, Doc. No. 10 (Plaintiff Hobbs); Doc. No. 7 at 2, Doc. No. 13 (Plaintiff Brooks).) Therefore, each Plaintiff will be granted pauper status and assessed $87.50 in the accompanying order. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).

II. INITIAL REVIEW

The Court must review and dismiss the Complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). And because Plaintiffs are representing themselves, the Court must hold the Complaint to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).

A. Allegations

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to protect them from beatings by gang-affiliated inmates, provide medical treatment following the beatings, and respond to subsequent sick-call requests, grievances, and letters. Plaintiffs allege that, due to severe staff shortages, a lack of staff training, and the failure to address known security issues, they live in fear for their lives, all while

2

continually failing to receive necessary medical treatment. (See Doc. No. 1 at 9.) They request monetary damages and a range of injunctive relief. (Id. at 10.) The Court will summarize the allegations specific to each Plaintiff before turning to allegations common to all four Plaintiffs, and in doing so, the Court accepts any factual allegations as true for the purpose of initial review.

1. Plaintiff Carroll

Under “shower security protocol,” non-gang-affiliated inmates who do not allow gang-affiliated inmates to proceed to the shower are charged a fee, and if they cannot pay, they are beaten or stabbed. (Id. at 3.) Around 5:00 p.m. on April 9, 2022, Plaintiff Carroll frantically told Sergeant S. Cuebas that he feared for his life because gang members threatened to beat and stab him if he did not pay for breaking this protocol. (Id.) Plaintiff Carroll asked Cuebas to be placed on protective custody. (Id.) Cuebas disregarded this request and left the housing unit. (Id.) Plaintiff Carroll went to his cell, pressed the intercom button to request help, and found that the intercom was not functional. (Id.) Six gang members entered Plaintiff Carroll's cell, three carrying shanks. (Id.) Three of them punched and kicked Plaintiff Carroll in the face, neck, and back. (Id.) One kicked Plaintiff Carroll hard in the midsection, causing “excruciating pain.” (Id.) As a result, Plaintiff Carroll suffered two black eyes, cuts on his lower lip, lower back pain, stomach pain, and severe headaches. (Id.) He also urinated blood for over two months. (Id.)

Plaintiff Carroll told Unit Manager Cherry Carter about this beating, requested to be placed in protective custody, and requested medical treatment. (Id.) Carter slammed Plaintiff Carroll's cell door with him inside, said “toughen up,” and told him to fill out a sick-call request. (Id.)

2. Plaintiff Brooks

Around noon on April 16, 2022, four gang members entered Plaintiff Brooks' cell and punched and kicked him for breaking shower security protocol. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff Brooks suffered

3

“excruciating chest pains, shortage of breath, mild headaches, [a] br[]uised jaw[,] and loose teeth.” (Id.) Plaintiff Brooks told the gang members that he could not pay them $50 because he just had open heart surgery. (Id.) After the beating, the gang members went through Plaintiff Brooks' property and were upset when they could not find any commissary. (Id.)

Plaintiff Brooks told Unit Manager Carter about this beating, requested medical treatment, and requested to be placed in protective custody. (Id.) Carter disregarded these requests and refused to investigate the incident; instead, Carter took Plaintiff Brooks back to his housing pod and “made an announcement to all the prisoners not to mess with [Plaintiff Brooks].” (Id.)

3. Plaintiff Sexton

Around 4:00 p.m. on April 20, 2022, some gang members approached Plaintiff Sexton while he was watching T.V. in a common area and told him that he owed $50 for breaking shower security protocol. (Id.) Plaintiff Sexton attempted to report this issue to a TTCC staff member, but none were present. (Id.) Plaintiff Sexton went to his cell to press the intercom button and request help, but four gang members followed him inside the cell, started beating him, and threatened to stab him if he fought back (one gang member was holding a knife). (Id.) The gang members then kicked Plaintiff Sexton in the back and head. (Id. at 6.) As a result of this beating, Plaintiff Sexton suffered back pain, a head injury, several loose teeth, two black eyes, and cuts on his lips. (Id.) He now has double vision, and his eyesight is fading. (Id.)

On April 21, 2022, Plaintiff Sexton told Sergeant Cuebas about this incident and requested protective custody. (Id.) Cuebas disregarded the request and told him to “fight back.” (Id.)

4. Plaintiff Hobbs

Around 7:00 p.m. on May 13, 2022, several gang members were chasing an inmate out of Plaintiff Hobbs' housing pod with knives. (Id.) There were 348 inmates in the housing unit at the

4

time, and the only official on staff in the unit was a single “on job training officer.” (Id.) This officer “became afraid and went home,” leaving the housing unit without any staff members. (Id.) At 10:30 p.m. that night, six gang members carrying knives entered Plaintiff Hobbs' cell to steal his commissary and clothes. (Id.) The gang members held a knife to Plaintiff Hobbs' throat while two of them punched Plaintiff Hobbs in the face. (Id.) Plaintiff Hobbs fell to the floor, and the gang members repeatedly kicked him in the face and head. (Id.) As the gang members were leaving the cell, one gave Plaintiff Hobbs a final kick on the left side of his rib cage, and Plaintiff Hobbs immediately began to cough up blood. (Id.)

Because there were no officers on staff in the housing unit on the night of the beating, and the intercom in Plaintiff Hobbs' cell did not work, he could not request medical treatment until shift change at 6:00 a.m. on May 14, 2022. (Id. at 7.) At that time, Plaintiff Hobbs told Sergeant Cuebas about the beating and requested medical treatment and protective custody. (Id.) Cuebas disregarded these requests and “slammed the door on [Plaintiff Hobbs].” (Id.)

5. Sick-Call Requests, Grievances, and Letters

After each Plaintiff was beaten by gang members, he submitted numerous sick-call requests. (Id. at 4 (Plaintiff Carroll submitted several sick-call requests between April 9 and May 10, 2022); id. (Plaintiff Brooks submitted sick-call requests on unspecified dates); id. at 6 (Plaintiff Sexton submitted numerous sick-call requests between April 20 and April 24, 2022); id. at 7 (Plaintiff Hobbs submitted numerous sick-call requests between May 14 and May 18, 2022).) No Plaintiff has received medical treatment, and Medical Service Administrator Holly Robertson did not respond to their requests. (Id. at 4, 6-7.)

Within two days of each beating, each Plaintiff filed a grievance regarding his respective incident. (Id. at 3 (Plaintiff Carroll filed on April 10, 2022); id. at 5 (Plaintiff Brooks filed on April 17, 2022);

5

id. at 6 (Plaintiff Sexton filed on April 21, 2022); id. at 7 (Plaintiff Hobbs filed on May 16, 2022).) The applicable grievance policy required a response within seven days, but that did not happen. (Id. at 3, 5-7.) After this seven-day period, each Plaintiff filed a grievance...