# Smith v. CoreCivic

> District Court, W.D. Tennessee · April 28, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10864098

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** April 28, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10864098

## Opinion text

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

JOEL RYAN SMITH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No. 1:22-cv-01191-SHM-tmp
)
CORECIVIC, F/N/U SMITH, and OFFICER )
F/N/U YOUNG, )
)
Defendants. )
)

ORDER MODIFYING THE DOCKET;
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1) WITH PREJUDICE IN PART AND
WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART; AND
GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND THE CLAIMS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On September 9, 2022, Plaintiff Joel Ryan Smith (“Plaintiff”) filed a pro se complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) When
Plaintiff filed the complaint, he was incarcerated at the Whiteville Correctional Facility (the
“WCF”), in Whiteville, Tennessee. (ECF No. 1-1 at PageID 4; ECF No. 1-2 at PageID 10.) (See
also https://foil.app.tn.gov/foil/details.jsp (Tennessee Department of Correction (the “TDOC”)
Felony Offender Information website, showing that Plaintiff is incarcerated at the WCF, with a
sentence end-date of December 23, 2025) (last accessed Apr. 28, 2025).) On September 12, 2022,
the Court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assessed the three hundred and fifty
dollar ($350.00) civil filing fee pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915,
et seq. (the “PLRA”). (ECF No. 4.)
In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims of: (1) failure to protect; (2) denial of segregated
cell assignment; and (3) deprivation of medical care. (ECF No. 1-1 at PageID 4-8.) Plaintiff sues:
Plaintiff seeks: (1) “compensat[ion] for my pain and suffering” (ECF No. 1-1 at PageID 7-8); and
(2) termination of the employment of “the officers who were involved.” (Id.)

The Clerk shall MODIFY the docket to: (1) add the WCF as a Defendant; and (2) change
Defendant Officer F/N/U Youngblood’s name to “Captain F/N/U Young.” (See ECF No. 1 at
PageID 2; ECF No. 1-1 at PageID 4.)
The complaint (ECF No. 1) is before the Court.
For the reasons explained below: (1) the complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE in part and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in part; and (2) leave to
amend the claims dismissed without prejudice is GRANTED.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that, on April 17, 2022, he told a “correctional officer” at the WCF
“inmates were threatening me if I didn’t pay them money.” (ECF No. 1-1 at PageID 4.) The un-

named correctional officer directed Plaintiff to pack his personal property and await further
instruction. As Plaintiff packed, Lieutenant Smith and Captain Young entered the cell, handcuffed
Plaintiff, questioned him, and told him to speak with Unit Manager Neal the following morning
about “RCA.”1 (Id.) Plaintiff does not describe the questions asked by Smith and Young. (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that, as he sat with his property at the pod’s front door on April 18, 2022,
he told Sergeant Murphy that “I needed to talk to Unit Manager Neal so that I could get her help
to find a safe place to live and isolate myself away from the drugs I was using.” (Id. at PageID 4-
5.) When Plaintiff met with Unit Manager Neal later that day, Neal told Plaintiff that the WCF is
not a rehabilitation facility and Plaintiff would be placed in the general population. (Id. at PageID

5.) Plaintiff alleges he told Neal that Plaintiff “feared for his life,” but Plaintiff does not explain

1 Plaintiff alleges Lieutenant Smith and Captain Young told Plaintiff that he “had all day that day
to RCA,” but Plaintiff does not explain the meaning of “RCA.” (ECF No. 1-1 at PageID 4.)
segregation [be]cause she didn’t have room.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges he told Neal and “all the
correction officers who were standing in [the] I-Unit sallyport that […] it was not safe for me to

live there [in general population].” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that, “[a]fter a short argument,” he was
handcuffed and “forced back” into general population unit I-D 102. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that
“[i]nstead of the Administration helping me, they made it worse and put me directly in harms way
again.” (Id. at PageID 5-6.) Plaintiff does not allege whether he feared drug use relapse or physical
safety in the WCF’s general population.
Plaintiff alleges that, when he “came back out [of] the cell into population” on April 19,
2022, he “was told by a certain inmate that I needed to pay him or I was going to be beat up.” (Id.
at PageID 6.) Plaintiff alleges that, although “the pod officer heard [the inmate] tell me he wanted
his money or some blood”, “[t]he officer didn’t try to call for help or nothing. [S]he just told us
to go back in the pod.” (Id.) When the inmate next told Plaintiff that “I could either come in his

cell and fight and get it over with or he was going to stab me if I wouldn’t go in the cell”, Plaintiff
“figured I wouldn’t make him mader [sic] so I went into the cell where I was assaulted by two
inmates [the ‘Assailants’].” (Id. at PageID 6-7 (the “Incident”).) When the Assailants were
dissatisfied because Plaintiff was not bleeding, they began hitting him “in the head, back, ribs, and
legs with a 2 foot long solid metal bar.” (Id. at PageID 7.) Plaintiff lost consciousness “and got
woke up [sic] by the other inmate stomping and kicking me.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he suffered
blood loss and dizziness during the Incident and that he required stitches in his ear. (Id.) When
correctional officers began the inmate headcount at 9:30 p.m., the officers “told the captain [that
Plaintiff] needed medical attention.” (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that, after he “healed up for 45 days in the RCA pod”, the “Administration
put me in general population in […] the pod that they moved the [Assailants] to after they found
them NOT GUILTY of assault.” (Id. (emphasis in original).) Plaintiff alleges that he is “still
at this prison don’t care about my safety.” (Id.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Court must screen prisoner complaints and dismiss any complaint, or any portion of
it, 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 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). Under those standards, the Court accepts
the complaint’s “well-pleaded” factual allegations as true and then determines whether the
allegations “plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.” Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th
Cir. 2011) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681). The Court does not assume that conclusory allegations
are true, because they are not “factual,” and all legal conclusions in a complaint “must be supported
by factual allegations.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 provides
guidance on this issue. Although Rule 8 requires a complaint to contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” it also requires factual
allegations to make a “‘showing,’ rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 n.3.
Courts screening cases accord more deference to pro se complaints than to those drafted
by lawyers. “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 are not exempt
(6th Cir. 1989); see also Brown v. Matauszak, 415 F. App’x 608, 612, 613 (6th Cir. 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))).
III. REQUIREMENTS TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER § 1983
Plaintiff sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1 at PageID 1.) To state a claim under §
1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) a deprivation of rights secured by the “Constitution
and laws” of the United States, and (2) that a defendant caused harm while acting under color of
state law. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 150 (1970).
IV. ANALYSIS
Claims Against: (1) The Individual Defendants In Their Official Capacities; (2)
CoreCivic; And (3) The WCF

Plaintiff does not allege whether he sues the Individual Defendants in their official or
individual capacities. (ECF Nos. 1 & 1-1.) The Sixth Circuit requires plaintiffs to “set forth clearly
in their pleading that they are suing the state defendants in their individual capacity for damages,
not simply in their capacity as state officials.” Wells, 891 F.2d at 592. “Absent a specification of
capacity, it is presumed that a state official is sued in his official capacity.” Northcott v. Plunkett,
42 F. App’x 795, 796 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Wells, 891 F.2d at 593). The Court construes
Plaintiff’s claims against the Individual Defendants as official capacity claims.
Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against the Individual Defendants are treated as claims
against the Individual Defendants’ employer — i.e., CoreCivic, the private corrections
management firm that manages the WCF. See Jones v. Union Cnty., Tennessee, 296 F.3d 417,
421 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Matthews v. Jones, 35 F.3d 1046, 1049 (6th Cir. 1994)); see also ECF
No. 1 at PageID 2 (alleging that the Individual Defendants are “CoreCivic officers”); https://
website, demonstrating that the WCF “is managed by CoreCivic, a private corrections
management firm”) (last accessed Apr. 28, 2025); https://www.corecivic.com/about (CoreCivic

website’s “About Us” page) (last accessed Apr. 28, 2025).
Plaintiff does not state a claim to relief against CoreCivic or the Individual Defendants in
their official capacities.
“A private corporation that performs the traditional state function of operating a prison acts
under color of state law for purposes of § 1983.” Thomas v. Coble, 55 F. App’x 748, 748 (6th
2003) (citing Street v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d 810, 814 (6th Cir. 1996)). The Sixth Circuit
applies the standards for assessing municipal liability to claims against private corporations that
operate prisons or provide medical care to prisoners. Id. at 748-49; Street, 102 F.3d at 817-
18. CoreCivic “cannot be held liable under a theory of respondeat superior.” Braswell v. Corr.
Corp. of Am., 419 F. App’x 622, 627 (6th Cir. 2011). To prevail on a § 1983 claim against

CoreCivic, Plaintiff “must show that a policy or well-settled custom of the company was the
‘moving force’ behind the alleged deprivation” of Plaintiff’s rights. See id.
Plaintiff does not identify or describe any policy or custom of CoreCivic, much less an
unconstitutional policy or custom of CoreCivic pursuant to which the Individual Defendants acted
to deprive Plaintiff of a constitutional right. (See ECF No. 1-1 at PageID 4-8.) Instead, Plaintiff
alleges generally that “the officers at this prison don’t care about my safety” (ECF No. 1-1 at
PageID 8) and “the Administration […] put me directly in harm[’]s way.” (Id. at PageID 5-6.)
Plaintiff fails to state a claim under § 1983 against CoreCivic.
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s claims against the Individual Defendants in their official

capacities are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s claims against CoreCivic are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to allege facts stating a claim to relief.
fails to state a claim to relief as a matter of law. Under § 1983, a jail is not a “person” subject to
suit. Marbry v. Corr. Med. Serv., 238 F.3d 422 (table), No. 99-6706, 2000 WL 1720959, at *2

(6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2000). Plaintiff’s claim against WCF is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for
failure to state a claim to relief as a matter of law.
V. AMENDMENT UNDER THE PLRA
The Sixth Circuit has held that a District Court may allow a prisoner to amend his complaint
to avoid a sua sponte dismissal under the PLRA. Lucas v. Chalk, 785 F. App’x 288, 291 (6th Cir.
2019) (citing LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013) (“[W]e hold, like every other
circuit to have reached the issue, that under Rule 15(a) a district court can allow a plaintiff to
amend his complaint even when the complaint is subject to dismissal under the PLRA”)); see also
Brown v. R.I., 511 F. App’x 4, 5 (1st Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (“Ordinarily, before dismissal for
failure to state a claim is ordered, some form of notice and an opportunity to cure the deficiencies

in the complaint must be afforded”). Leave to amend is not required where a deficiency cannot be
cured. Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. United States, 257 F.3d 31, 37 (1st Cir. 2001) (“This does not mean,
of course, that every sua sponte dismissal entered without prior notice to the plaintiff automatically
must be reversed. If it is crystal clear that ... amending the complaint would be futile, then a sua
sponte dismissal may stand.”); Curley v. Perry, 246 F.3d 1278, 1284 (10th Cir. 2001) (“We agree
with the majority view that sua sponte dismissal of a meritless complaint that cannot be salvaged
by amendment comports with due process and does not infringe the right of access to the courts”).
The Court grants leave to amend the complaint under the conditions set forth below
VI. CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained above:
A. To the extent the complaint (ECF No. 1) alleges claims against the WCF and against
Lieutenant Smith and Captain Young in their official capacities (collectively, the “Claims

Dismissed With Prejudice”), those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state
a claim to relief as a matter of law. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). Leave
to amend the Claims Dismissed With Prejudice is DENIED.
B. The claims in the complaint against CoreCivic (the “Claims Dismissed Without
Prejudice”) are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to allege facts stating a claim to
relief.
C. Leave to amend the Claims Dismissed Without Prejudice is GRANTED. An
amended pleading must be filed within twenty-day (21) days of the date of this Order and must
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to Rule 8’s
requirement of a short and plain statement of Plaintiff’s claims. An amended complaint supersedes

the initial complaint and must be complete in itself without reference to the prior pleadings.
Plaintiff must sign the amended complaint, and the text of the amended complaint must allege
sufficient facts to support each claim without reference to any extraneous document. Any exhibits
must be identified by number in the text of the amended complaint and must be attached to the
amended complaint. All claims alleged in an amended complaint must arise from the facts alleged
in the initial complaint. Each claim for relief must be stated in a separate count and must identify
each Defendant sued on that count. If Plaintiff decides to amend his claims, he must use the
“Complaint For Violation Of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983” form.2 If Plaintiff fails to file
an amended complaint within the time specified, the Court will dismiss the complaint with

prejudice in its entirety and enter judgment. The Court recommends that any such dismissal should

2 See https://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/sites/tnwd/files/CivilRightsComplaint.pdf (last accessed
Apr. 28, 2025).
353 (6th Cir. 2021).

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 28th day of April, 2025.

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10864098. Public record. Not legal advice.