Lee v. Corizen Mental Health Provider

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN DIVISION

JASON EDWARD LEE, SR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

VS. ) No. 20-1216-JDT-cgc

)

CORIZON HEALTH, ET AL., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER TO MODIFY THE DOCKET,

PARTIALLY DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT,

AND DIRECTING THAT PROCESS BE ISSUED AND SERVED

ON DEFENDANTS SHANNON AND ROSS

On September 28, 2020, the Court dismissed the pro se prisoner complaint filed by

Plaintiff Jason Edward Lee, Sr., and granted leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF No.

5.) The Clerk received and docketed Lee’s amended complaint on October 26, 2020. (ECF

No. 6.)1 The Clerk shall modify the docket to add the following Defendants: Noel Shannon,

a Counselor at the Northwest Correctional Complex (NWCX); Mrs. First Name Unknown

1 The September 28 order gave Lee 21 days from the date of the order (not the date on

which he received it) in which to file an amendment (ECF No. 5 at PageID 22), so that it was due

to be mailed on or before October 19, 2020. In accordance with Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266

(1988), Lee’s document is deemed filed when it was given to prison authorities for mailing.

Though the envelope was stamped in the prison mailroom on October 21, 2020, Lee signed the

amended complaint on October 17, 2020. (See ECF No. 6 at PageID 28-29.) Given the likely

prison restrictions in place at the time due to the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the Court will

assume Lee gave the document to prison staff for mailing that same day and consider it timely.

(FNU) Ross, Program Director of the Corizon Mental Health Unit at the NWCX; Mrs.

FNU Polk; and Mrs. FNU Eison. Lee seeks monetary compensation and wants the

Defendants to be “discipline[d]” and “trained properly.” (Id. at PageID 28.)

The legal standards for assessing the claims in an inmate’s complaint were set forth

in the prior order of dismissal, (ECF No. 5 at PageID 17-18), and will not be reiterated

here.

In the order of September 28, 2020, the Court found that Lee’s original complaint

did not state a valid claim against Corizon Health or against any Corizon employee in his

or her official capacity. The complaint did not allege that Lee suffered any injury because

of an unconstitutional policy or custom of Corizon. (ECF No. 5 at PageID 19-20.)

Lee’s amended complaint still fails in this regard. He does not allege that a Corizon

policy or custom caused the putative constitutional deprivations of which he complains.

(See ECF No. 6 at PageID 25-27.) Instead, he merely states: “[Defendants] went against

Corizon’s own policy and procedure as well as N.W.C.X.’s.” (Id. at PageID 27.) Such

conclusory generalization does not meet Plaintiff’s pleading burden, as the order fully

described for him. (ECF No. 5 at PageID 19-20.) The amended complaint therefore does

not state a claim to relief against Corizon.

Because Defendant Shannon is identified as a Counselor, not as a medical or mental

health provider, it is unclear whether she is also an employee of Corizon or whether she is

employed by the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC). If she is a TDOC

employee, any official capacity claims against her are treated as claims against the State of

Tennessee. However, Lee has no valid claim against the State. 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); 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)). Tennessee has not waived its sovereign

immunity. See Tenn. Code 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 v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Lee thus

has no claims for money damages against Shannon in her official capacity.

The Supreme Court has clarified, however, that “a state official in his or her official

capacity, when sued for injunctive relief, would be a person under § 1983 because

‘official-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the State.’”

Will, 491 U.S. at 71 n.10 (quoting Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 n.14 (1985),

and Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-60 (1908)); see also Thiokol Corp. v. Dep’t of

Treasury, 987 F.2d 376, 381 (6th Cir. 1993) (“[T]he [eleventh] amendment does not

preclude actions against state officials sued in their official capacity for prospective

injunctive or declaratory relief.” (citing Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123)).

To proceed with official capacity claims for prospective injunctive relief against

State employees, Lee must allege that the State of Tennessee was responsible for the

violation of his constitutional rights because of a practiced custom or policy. Kentucky v.

Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 16-67 (1985); Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691

(1978). The Sixth Circuit has held that to establish the requisite causal link between

constitutional violation and policy, a plaintiff must “identify the policy, connect the policy

to the [entity] itself and show that the particular injury was incurred because of the

execution of that policy.” Garner v. Memphis Police Dep’t, 8 F.3d 358, 364 (6th Cir.

1993). The custom or policy must be “the moving force” behind the deprivation of the

plaintiff’s rights. Powers v. Hamilton Cnty. Pub. Defender Comm’n, 501 F.3d 592, 606-

07 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 694). Lee has not alleged he was injured due

to an unconstitutional policy or custom of the State of Tennessee. He thus also fails to state

a claim for prospective injunctive relief against Defendant Shannon.

The Court also concluded in the September 28, 2020, order that the original

complaint did not state a claim for inadequate medical and mental health care against

unidentified employees of the mental health program at the NWCX. First, the Court found

that even if it was assumed Lee’s mental and physical conditions amounted to serious

medical needs, he did not allege that any specific individual in the mental health program

knew dropping his mental health level and returning him to general population would put

his mental and/or physical health and safety at substantial risk. (Id. at PageID 21.) Second,

Lee gave no information at all about the seriousness of his mental health issues except to

say that he suffered “major” panic attacks after returning to the general population. (Id.)

Lee’s amended complaint alleges he told Defendants Shannon, Ross, Polk, and

Eison “that I could never function or make it in general population.” (ECF No. 6 at PageID

26.) He contends his doctors told them the same thing (id.), and that these Defendants

therefore “knew of the dangers and issues facing my mental [and] physical well being [and]

ignored them.” (Id. at PageID 27.) He also alleges he told the Defendants he had “hits”

on him and feared for his safety. Yet his mental health level was dropped from three to

two without his knowledge, without his doctor’s knowledge, and without a treatment team

meeting being held by Ross,2 the Mental Health Program Director. (Id. at PageID 26.) Lee

further alleges that Shannon, his Counselor, knew his disorders and diagnoses put him at

risk and “promised me she wouldn’t go behind my back.” (Id.) Yet when he asked her to

help him get into protective custody, she merely said “O well” and refused to do so despite

knowing he was in danger. (Id.)

As a result of being placed back in general population at the NWCX, Lee allegedly

suffered a major mental health breakdown with several anxiety attacks and major paranoid

delusions. (Id. at PageID 27.) He states he received six write-ups during his breakdown,

one of which was for holding a unit manager hostage and using a weapon, making her fear

for her safety. (Id.) Consequently, he was relocated to “max” where he was beaten and

2 Lee states that Ross, the Program Director, “was replaced because of this incident [and]

the Warden changed the rules dealing with expulsion [from] the program.” (ECF No. 1 at

PageID 27.)

isolated and “placed in a wet cell in just my boxers for over 2 weeks damaging nerves in

my feet, legs [and] arms.” (Id.) His mental health allegedly has worsened, and he was

“even recently diagnosed with P.T.S.D. largely in part due to the incidents in question.”

(Id.)

Lee has alleged the objective prong of an Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate

mental health treatment. Though he does not use technical medical language to detail his

conditions, the descriptions of extreme anxiety and paranoid delusions causing him to act

in a threatening and violent manner are sufficient to allege that his mental health needs are

“objectively serious.” See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Blackmore v.

Kalamazoo Cnty., 390 F.3d 890, 897 (6th Cir. 2004).

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

had a “sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; see also 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; Dominguez v. Corr. Med. Servs.,

555 F.3d 543, 550 (6th Cir. 2009). “[D]eliberate indifference describes a state of mind

more blameworthy than negligence.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835. A prison official cannot

be found liable under the Eighth Amendment unless he subjectively knows of an excessive

risk of harm to an inmate’s health or safety and disregards that risk. Id. at 837.

With regard to Defendants Polk and Eison, the amendment does not set out their

positions within the NWCX mental health program, their actual roles in the events of which

Lee complains, or the specific actions they took or failed to take that allegedly violated his

right to adequate medical and mental health care. The only allegation is that they knew he

“could not make it” and was at risk in the general population because of his mental health

issues. That is not enough, by itself, to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment.

As to Defendant Ross, however, Lee alleges she allowed his mental health level to

be dropped from three to two without his knowledge and without the knowledge of his

doctors. In so doing, Ross failed to convene a treatment team meeting despite having been

told, both by Lee himself and by his doctors, that he was unable to function in general

population. These allegations sufficiently state a claim that Ross acted with deliberate

indifference to Lee’s serious mental health needs, and his claim against her will be allowed

to go forward.

The Court construes Lee’s claim against Defendant Shannon as a claim that she

failed to protect him by refusing to help him get into protective custody. The Eighth

Amendment also gives prisoners the right to be free “from violence at the hands of other

prisoners.” Bishop v. Hackel, 636 F.3d 757, 766 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S.

at 833); see also Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 600 (6th Cir. 1998) (explaining that the

Eighth Amendment imposes on prison officials “an affirmative duty to protect inmates

from violence perpetrated by other prisoners”). Accordingly, the Constitution requires

prison officials to “take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates.”

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832 (quoting Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526-27 (1984)).

To satisfy the objective prong of a failure-to-protect claim, a plaintiff must

demonstrate that “he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious

harm.” Bishop, 636 F.3d at 766 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833). The Court finds Lee’s

allegation that he had “hits” on him and his allegations describing serious mental health

issues which made him vulnerable in the general population are enough to satisfy the

objective prong of an Eighth Amendment claim.

Lee has also sufficiently alleged Shannon acted with deliberate indifference to those

significant risks to his health and safety. He contends she was aware of his mental health

issues and knew about the “hits” on him; she therefore knew he was vulnerable if left in

the general population. Yet she refused to help him get into protective custody. This claim

also will be allowed to proceed.

To the extent Lee is attempting to assert a stand-alone claim that the Defendants

failed to follow internal Corizon and/or NWCX policies governing the mental health

program, he does not state a claim. An inmate’s allegation that prison officials failed to

follow a correctional facility’s administrative policies does not, in and of itself, rise to the

level of a constitutional violation. Laney v. Farley, 501 F.3d 577, 581 n.2 (6th Cir. 2007).

After Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995), it is even clearer that mandatory

language in prison regulations does not create a liberty interest protected by the Due

Process Clause. See Rienholtz v. Campbell, 64 F. Supp. 2d 721, 729-30 (W.D. Tenn. 1999)

(citing Rimmer-Bey v. Brown, 62 F.3d 789, 790-71 (6th Cir. 1995)), aff’d, 198 F.3d 247

(6th Cir. 1999). Section 1983 does not provide a remedy for violations of state laws or

regulations. Lewellen v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson Cnty., 34 F.3d 345, 347

(6th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, Lee does not have a constitutional right to the Defendants’

observance of prison policies.

In conclusion, for all of the foregoing reasons, Lee’s official capacity claims against

all of the Defendants are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii) and

1915A(b)(1)-(2). His individual capacity claims against Defendants Polk and Eison are

DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). Lee’s

Eighth Amendment individual capacity claims against Defendant Shannon for failure to

protect and against Defendant Ross for inadequate health care will proceed.

The Clerk is ORDERED to issue process for Defendants Noel Shannon and Mrs.

First Name Unknown Ross3 and deliver that process to the U.S. Marshal for service.

Service shall be made on the Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)

and Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 4.04(1) and (10) by registered or certified mail or

personally if mail service is not effective. All costs of service shall by advanced by the

United States.

It is further ORDERED that Lee shall serve a copy of every subsequent document

he files in this case on the attorneys for the Defendants or on any Defendant personally if

she is unrepresented. Le shall make a certificate of service on every document he files. He

shall familiarize himself with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local

Rules.4

3 As stated, see supra note 2, Lee states Defendant Ross was replaced as the Program

Director of the Mental Health Program. (ECF No. 6 at PageID 27.) He does not, however, state

whether she remained employed at the NWCX in another capacity. If Lee is aware that Ross is

employed at a location or facility other than the NWCX, he should notify the Court

immediately.

4 A copy of the Local Rules may be obtained from the Clerk or on the Court’s website at

https://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/pdf/content/LocalRules.pdf.

Lee is reminded that he must promptly notify the Clerk, in writing, 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