CASE−MANAGER−FRENSLEY,PROTECTIVE−ORDER
U.S. District Court Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:17−cv−00048

Dodson et al v. CoreCivic et al Assigned to: District Judge Eli J. Richardson Referred to: Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley Cause: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 01/12/2017 Date Terminated: 07/25/2019 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities − Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Douglas Dodson

represented by Charles P. Yezbak , III Yezbak Law Offices 2002 Richard Jones Road Suite B−200 Nashville, TN 37215 (615) 250−2000 Fax: (615) 250−2020 Email: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jon C. Goldfarb Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, PLLC (Birmingham Office) The Kress Building 301 19th Street, N Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 314−0548 Fax: (205) 314−0748 Email: jcg@wigginschilds.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua D. Wilson King & Ballow 315 Union Street Suite 1100 Nashville, TN 37201 (615) 259−3456 Fax: (888) 688−0482 Email: jwilson@kingballow.com TERMINATED: 05/24/2017

Justin S. Gilbert Gilbert McWherter Scott Bobbitt PLC (Chattanooga TN Office) 100 W. Martin Luther King Boulevard Suite 501 Chattanooga, TN 37402 (423) 499−3044 Fax: (731) 664−1540 Email: jgilbert@gilbertfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

L. William Smith Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, PLLC (Birmingham Office) The Kress Building 301 19th Street, N Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 314−0528 Fax: (205) 314−0728
Case: 3:17-cv-48 As of: 03/17/2020 12:54 PM CDT 1 of 17

Email: wsmith@wigginschilds.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rachel McGinley Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, PLLC (Birmingham Office) The Kress Building 301 19th Street, N Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 314−0546 Fax: (205) 254−1500 Email: rmcginley@wigginschilds.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tazarius Leach #513883 Trousdale Turner Correctional Center 140 Macon Way Hartsville, TN 37074 TERMINATED: 04/18/2017

represented by Charles P. Yezbak , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jon C. Goldfarb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua D. Wilson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/2017

Justin S. Gilbert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

L. William Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rachel McGinley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Richard Little TERMINATED: 05/29/2018

represented by Charles P. Yezbak , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jon C. Goldfarb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua D. Wilson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/2017

Justin S. Gilbert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

L. William Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rachel McGinley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:17-cv-48 As of: 03/17/2020 12:54 PM CDT 2 of 17

Plaintiff Jasper L. Vick TTCC 140 Macon Way Hartsville, TN 37074
Plaintiff Edward Judd TERMINATED: 05/23/2019

represented by Charles P. Yezbak , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jon C. Goldfarb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua D. Wilson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/2017
Justin S. Gilbert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
L. William Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel McGinley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jon C. Goldfarb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua D. Wilson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/2017
L. William Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
CoreCivic doing business as Corrections Corporation of America

represented by Erin Palmer Polly Butler Snow LLP (Nashville) The Pinnacle at Symphony Place 150 Third Avenue South Suite 1600 Nashville, TN 37201 (615) 651−6700 Email: Erin.Polly@butlersnow.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph F. Welborn , III Butler Snow LLP (Nashville) The Pinnacle at Symphony Place 150 Third Avenue South Suite 1600 Nashville, TN 37201 (615) 651−6700 Email: Joe.Welborn@butlersnow.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kyle V. Miller Case: 3:17-cv-48 As of: 03/17/2020 12:54 PM CDT 3 of 17

Defendant Tennessee Department of Correction TERMINATED: 05/23/2019
Defendant Tony Parker Commissioner of Tennessee Department of Correction TERMINATED: 05/23/2019

Butler Snow LLP (Ridgeland, MS Office) 1020 Highland Colony Parkway Suite 1400 Ridgeland, MS 39157 (601) 948−5711 Fax: (601) 985−4500 Email: kyle.miller@butlersnow.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paige Ayres Nutini Butler Snow LLP (Nashville) The Pinnacle at Symphony Place 150 Third Avenue South Suite 1600 Nashville, TN 37201 (615) 651−6780 Email: paige.nutini@butlersnow.com TERMINATED: 01/26/2018
represented by Jennifer L. Brenner Tennessee Attorney General's Office P O Box 20207 Nashville, TN 37202 (615) 532−2500 Email: jennifer.brenner@ag.tn.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Torrey Samson Tennessee Attorney General's Office P O Box 20207 Nashville, TN 37202−0207 (615) 741−6820 Fax: (615) 532−2541 Email: torrey.samson@ag.tn.gov TERMINATED: 07/10/2019
represented by Jennifer L. Brenner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Torrey Samson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2019

V. Intervenor Plaintiff American Diabetes Association

represented by Alan L. Yatvin Popper & Yatvin 230 S. Broad Street Suite 503 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 546−5700 Email: Popper.yatvin@verizon.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin S. Gilbert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:17-cv-48 As of: 03/17/2020 12:54 PM CDT 4 of 17

Sarah Fech−Baughman American Diabetes Association 2451 Crystal Drive Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22202 (703) 253−4823 Email: sfech@diabetes.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/12/2017
01/13/2017
01/13/2017
01/13/2017 01/13/2017 01/13/2017 01/13/2017 01/13/2017 01/13/2017 01/17/2017
01/17/2017 01/18/2017
01/19/2017 01/19/2017

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against CoreCivic, Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction (Filing fee $400, Receipt number 0650−2358547), filed by Douglas Dodson, Jasper Vick, Richard Little, Tazarius Leach. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Civil Cover Sheet)(dt) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
2 MOTION for attorney(s) Jon C. Goldfarb to Appear Pro Hac Vice (paid $75 PHV fee; receipt number 0650−2359477) by Douglas Dodson, Tazarius Leach, Richard Little, Jasper Vick. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Certificate of Good Standing)(Wilson, Joshua) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
3 MOTION for attorney(s) L. William Smith to Appear Pro Hac Vice (paid $75 PHV fee; receipt number 0650−2359546) by Douglas Dodson, Tazarius Leach, Richard Little, Jasper Vick. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Certificate of Good Standing)(Wilson, Joshua) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
4 NOTICE of Corporate Disclosure Statement filing requirement. (dt) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
5 NOTICE/INFORMATION regarding Consent of the Parties to the Magistrate Judge. (dt) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
TN State Bar status verified as active for Joshua D. Wilson. (dt) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
AL State Bar status verified as active for Jon C. Goldfarb and L. William Smith. (dt) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
6 Summons issued as to CoreCivic, Tony Parker and Tennessee Department of Correction. (Service copies will be returned to counsel by mail.)(dt) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
7 NOTICE of Initial Case Management Conference set for 3/13/2017 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley. (dt) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
8 ORDER: This case is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for customized case management in accordance with Local Rule 16.01. This case shall be set for trial upon completion of the initial case management conference by order of the District Judge in accordance with the procedures of Local Rule 16.01(d)(5). Signed by District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 1/17/17. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt) (Entered: 01/17/2017)
9 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Douglas Dodson, Tazarius Leach, Richard Little, Jasper Vick. (Wilson, Joshua) (Entered: 01/17/2017)
10 MOTION for attorney(s) Rachel McGinley to Appear Pro Hac Vice (paid $75 PHV fee; receipt number 0650−2362435) by Douglas Dodson, Tazarius Leach, Richard Little, Jasper Vick. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Certificate of Good Standing)(Wilson, Joshua) (Entered: 01/18/2017)
AL State Bar status verified as active for Rachel McGinley. (dt) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
11 ORDER granting 10 Motion for Rachel L. McGinley to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 1/19/17. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt) (Entered: 01/19/2017)

Case: 3:17-cv-48 As of: 03/17/2020 12:54 PM CDT 5 of 17

01/20/2017

12 (DISREGARD − ENTERED IN ERROR − INCORRECT PDF) SUMMONS returned executed by Douglas Dodson, Jasper Vick, Richard Little, Tazarius Leach. Tennessee Department of Correction served on 1/18/2017. (Wilson, Joshua) Modified on 1/23/2017 (dt). (Entered: 01/20/2017)

01/20/2017

13 (DISREGARD − ENTERED IN ERROR − INCORRECT PDF) SUMMONS returned executed by Douglas Dodson, Jasper Vick, Richard Little, Tazarius Leach. Tony Parker served on 1/18/2017. (Wilson, Joshua) Modified on 1/23/2017 (dt). (Entered: 01/20/2017)

01/23/2017

DOCKET ANNOTATION: Disregard DE #12−13 − entered in error − incorrect pdfs attorney to refile. (dt) (Entered: 01/23/2017)

01/27/2017

14 SUMMONS returned executed by Douglas Dodson, Jasper Vick, Richard Little, Tazarius Leach. CoreCivic served on 1/25/2017., GREEN CARD RETURNED Executed Acknowledgement filed by Douglas Dodson; Jasper Vick; Richard Little; Tazarius Leach. (Wilson, Joshua) (Entered: 01/27/2017)

01/27/2017

15 GREEN CARD RETURNED Executed Acknowledgement filed by Douglas Dodson, Jasper Vick, Richard Little, Tazarius Leach., SUMMONS returned executed by Douglas Dodson, Jasper Vick, Richard Little, Tazarius Leach. Tennessee Department of Correction served on 1/25/2017. (Wilson, Joshua) (Entered: 01/27/2017)

01/27/2017

16 SUMMONS returned executed by Douglas Dodson, Jasper Vick, Richard Little, Tazarius Leach. Tony Parker served on 1/25/2017., GREEN CARD RETURNED Executed Acknowledgement filed by Douglas Dodson; Jasper Vick; Richard Little; Tazarius Leach. (Wilson, Joshua) (Entered: 01/27/2017)

02/07/2017 17 NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph F. Welborn, III on behalf of CoreCivic (Welborn, Joseph) (Entered: 02/07/2017)

02/07/2017 18 NOTICE of Appearance by Erin Palmer Polly on behalf of CoreCivic (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 02/07/2017)

02/07/2017 19 NOTICE of Appearance by Paige M. Ayres on behalf of CoreCivic (Ayres, Paige) (Entered: 02/07/2017)

02/07/2017 20 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by CoreCivic. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 02/07/2017)

02/08/2017

TN State Bar status verified as active for Joseph F. Welborn, III, Erin Palmer Polly and Paige M. Ayres. (dt) (Entered: 02/08/2017)

02/08/2017 21 NOTICE of Appearance by Jennifer L. Brenner on behalf of Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction (Brenner, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/08/2017)

02/08/2017 22 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction.(Brenner, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/08/2017)

02/08/2017 23 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by CoreCivic. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 02/08/2017)

02/08/2017 24 MOTION for attorney(s) Kyle V. Miller to Appear Pro Hac Vice (paid $75 PHV fee; receipt number 0650−2377663) by CoreCivic. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 02/08/2017)

02/08/2017

25 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING of Attorney Kyle V. Miller from the United States District Court for the Southern of Mississippi filed by CoreCivic. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 02/08/2017)

02/09/2017

TN State Bar status verified as active for Jennifer L. Brenner. (dt) (Entered: 02/09/2017)

02/09/2017

26 ORDER granting 2 Motion for Jon C. Goldfarb to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 2/9/17. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt) (Entered: 02/09/2017)

02/09/2017

27 ORDER granting 3 Motion for L. William Smith to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 2/9/17. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

Case: 3:17-cv-48 As of: 03/17/2020 12:54 PM CDT 6 of 17

02/09/2017
02/09/2017
03/01/2017 03/07/2017 03/13/2017 03/13/2017 03/14/2017 04/07/2017
04/13/2017 04/18/2017
04/21/2017
05/22/2017 05/23/2017 05/23/2017 05/24/2017
08/02/2017 08/10/2017

(Entered: 02/09/2017)
28 ORDER granting 20 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer the 1 Complaint. CoreCivic answer due 3/1/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 2/9/17. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt) (Entered: 02/09/2017)
29 ORDER granting 24 Motion for Kyle V. Miller to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 2/9/17. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt) (Entered: 02/09/2017)
30 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by CoreCivic.(Polly, Erin) (Entered: 03/01/2017)
31 PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER filed by Douglas Dodson, Tazarius Leach, Richard Little, Jasper Vick. (Goldfarb, Jon) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
32 NOTICE of Appearance by Torrey Samson on behalf of Tennessee Department of Correction and Tony Parker. (Samson, Torrey) Modified on 3/14/2017 (dt). (Entered: 03/13/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley: Initial Case Management Conference held on 3/13/2017. Order to enter. (Recording: 13mar2017.) (hv) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
TN State Bar status verified as active for Torrey Samson. (dt) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
33 INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Motion to Amended Pleadings due by 11/16/2017. Discovery due by 5/25/2018. Dispositive Motions due by 6/15/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 4/7/2017. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(mg) (Entered: 04/10/2017)
34 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Tazarius Leach (Smith, L.) (Entered: 04/13/2017)
35 ORDER: Plaintiff Tazarius Leach's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice 34 is GRANTED. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED as to the claims of Plaintiff Leach against Defendants, and the Clerk is directed to terminate Leach as a party. Signed by District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 4/18/17. (dt) (Entered: 04/19/2017)
36 ORDER: Jury Trial set for 12/11/2018 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom A859 before Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr. Pretrial Conference set for 12/3/2018 at 10:00 AM before Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr. Exhibit List due by 11/26/2018; Witness List due by 11/26/2018; and Proposed Pretrial Order due by 11/26/2018. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 4/21/2017. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(mg) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
37 NOTICE of Appearance by Charles P. Yezbak, III on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Yezbak, Charles) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
TN State Bar status verified as active for Charles P. Yezbak, III. (mg) (Entered: 05/23/2017)
38 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Douglas Dodson, Tazarius Leach, Richard Little, Jasper L. Vick. (Wilson, Joshua) (Entered: 05/23/2017)
39 ORDER: Motion 38 GRANTED. Attorney Joshua D. Wilson terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 5/24/2017. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(mg) Modified on 5/24/2017 (mg). (Entered: 05/24/2017)
40 JOINT Statement Regarding Case Resolution Efforts filed by CoreCivic in support of 33 Case Management Order,. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 08/02/2017)
41 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by CoreCivic. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Agreed Protective Order Against Unauthorized Use or Disclosure of Confidential Information)(Polly, Erin) (Entered: 08/10/2017)

Case: 3:17-cv-48 As of: 03/17/2020 12:54 PM CDT 7 of 17

08/11/2017
08/17/2017 08/17/2017 08/17/2017 08/18/2017 08/18/2017 08/18/2017 08/18/2017 08/18/2017 08/23/2017
08/24/2017 09/08/2017 09/12/2017
09/14/2017 09/14/2017
09/18/2017 09/18/2017 09/18/2017

42 ORDER granting 41 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 8/11/2017. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(mg) Modified text on 8/16/2017 (mg). (Entered: 08/11/2017)
43 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction. (Brenner, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/17/2017)
44 MEMORANDUM in Support of 43 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction . (Brenner, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/17/2017)
45 AFFIDAVIT re 44 Memorandum in Support of Brandon Maloney by Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction. (Brenner, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/17/2017)
46 MOTION to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment by CoreCivic. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
47 MEMORANDUM in Support of 46 MOTION to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment filed by CoreCivic . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Unpublished Opinions)(Polly, Erin) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
48 STATEMENT of facts Undisputed Material filed by CoreCivic in support of 46 Motion to Dismiss. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
49 DECLARATION of Beverly Atwood filed by CoreCivic re: 46 MOTION to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
50 DECLARATION of Bridgett Pierce filed by CoreCivic re: 46 MOTION to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Policy 501.01 Inmate Grievance Procedures)(Polly, Erin) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
51 ORDER: According to the Initial Case Management Order 33 entered on April 7, 2017, by the undersigned, the response is due 28 days after the service of the Motion, and an optional reply file be filed within 14 days after the service of the Response. Docket No. 33. Any filings made related to the Motions to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment (extensions of time, exceed page limits) shall be considered by Judge Crenshaw, Chief District Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 8/23/2017. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(mg) (Entered: 08/23/2017)
52 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint, by Douglas Dodson, Richard Little, Jasper L. Vick. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Smith, L.) (Entered: 08/24/2017)
53 NOTICE by CoreCivic re 52 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint, (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
54 ORDER: Motion 52 GRANTED without opposition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 9/12/2017. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(mg) (Entered: 09/12/2017)
55 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Douglas Dodson, Jasper L. Vick, Richard Little.(Smith, L.) (Entered: 09/14/2017)
56 RESPONSE in Opposition re 46 MOTION to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment, 43 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Douglas Dodson, Richard Little, Jasper L. Vick. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Response to Statement of Facts, # 2 Exhibit A, Dodson's Grievances, # 3 Exhibit B, Unpublished Cases)(Smith, L.) (Entered: 09/14/2017)
57 ANSWER to 55 Amended Complaint by Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction.(Brenner, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
58 ANSWER to 55 Amended Complaint by CoreCivic.(Polly, Erin) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
59 Supplemental MOTION to Dismiss and For Summary Judgment by CoreCivic. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 09/18/2017)

Case: 3:17-cv-48 As of: 03/17/2020 12:54 PM CDT 8 of 17

09/18/2017 09/18/2017 09/18/2017 09/20/2017
09/25/2017 09/26/2017 09/26/2017 09/26/2017
09/27/2017
10/03/2017 10/03/2017 10/06/2017 10/06/2017 10/06/2017

60 MEMORANDUM in Support of 59 Supplemental MOTION to Dismiss and For Summary Judgment filed by CoreCivic Supplemental. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Unpublished Cases)(Polly, Erin) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
61 DECLARATION of Bridgett Pierce filed by CoreCivic re: 59 Supplemental MOTION to Dismiss and For Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A March 8, 2017 Grievance filed by Judd, # 2 Exhibit B March 16, 2017 Grievance filed by Judd, # 3 Exhibit C April 28, 2017 Grievance filed by Judd)(Polly, Erin) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
62 STATEMENT of facts Supplemental Undisputed Material filed by CoreCivic in support of 59 Motion to Dismiss. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
63 ORDER: On September 18, 2017, Defendant CoreCivic Inc. filed a Supplemental Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment, Memorandum in Support, Declaration of Bridgett Pierce, and Statement of Facts. Docket Nos. 59 − 62 . According to footnote 1, this Supplemental Motion is being filed in response to the Amended complaint and is intended to replace the Motion for Summary Judgment filed on August 18, 2017. The response is due 20 days after the service of the Motion, and an optional reply file be filed within 10 days after the service of the Response. Docket No. 51 . Any filings made related to the Motion for Summary Judgment (extensions of time, exceed page limits) shall be considered by Judge Crenshaw, Chief District Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 9/20/2017. (mg) (Entered: 09/20/2017)
64 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 56 Response in Opposition to Motion, by Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction. (Brenner, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
65 Supplemental MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction. (Brenner, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
66 MEMORANDUM in Support of 65 Supplemental MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction . (Brenner, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
67 AFFIDAVIT re 66 Memorandum in Support of Benjamin F. Bean by Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment TDOC Policy 501.01, TOMIS Grievance Report for Douglas G. Dodson, Grievance Number 00306707 Filed by Inmate Edward C. Judd, and Grievance Number 00310882 Filed by Inmate John Young)(Brenner, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
68 MOTION to Certify Class Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Class Certification by Douglas Dodson, Richard Little, Jasper L. Vick. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Standards for Diabetes Care, # 2 Exhibit B − Diabetes Management in Correctional Institutions, # 3 Exhibit C − Defendant CoreCivic's Response to Plaintiffs' First Discovery Request, # 4 Exhibit D − First Aid and Medical Referral Training, # 5 Exhibit E − Dodson Notes, # 6 Exhibit F − Vick Grievances, # 7 Exhibit G − Little Grievance, # 8 Exhibit H − September Diabetes List, # 9 Exhibit I − 9.8.17 Letter Re: Discovery)(Smith, L.) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
69 MOTION to Stay Discovery by CoreCivic. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 10/03/2017)
70 MEMORANDUM in Support of 69 MOTION to Stay Discovery filed by CoreCivic . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Unpublished Cases)(Polly, Erin) (Entered: 10/03/2017)
71 RESPONSE in Opposition re 59 Supplemental MOTION to Dismiss and For Summary Judgment filed by Douglas Dodson, Richard Little, Jasper L. Vick. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Unpublished Cases, # 2 Exhibit B, Vick Grievance)(Smith, L.) (Entered: 10/06/2017)
72 RESPONSE to Motion re 59 Supplemental MOTION to Dismiss and For Summary Judgment Response to Statement of Facts filed by Douglas Dodson, Richard Little, Jasper L. Vick. (Smith, L.) (Entered: 10/06/2017)
73 DECLARATION of L. William Smith filed by Douglas Dodson, Richard Little, Jasper L. Vick. (Smith, L.) (Entered: 10/06/2017)

Case: 3:17-cv-48 As of: 03/17/2020 12:54 PM CDT 9 of 17

10/10/2017 10/11/2017 10/13/2017 10/17/2017 10/20/2017 10/20/2017 10/20/2017 10/20/2017 10/20/2017 10/24/2017
10/24/2017 10/25/2017
10/26/2017
10/26/2017 10/31/2017 11/01/2017
11/01/2017

74 RESPONSE in Opposition re 65 Supplemental MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Douglas Dodson, Richard Little, Jasper L. Vick. (Smith, L.) (Entered: 10/10/2017)
75 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 74 Response in Opposition to Motion, 33 Case Management Order, in Support of Its Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment by CoreCivic. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 10/11/2017)
76 REPLY to Response to Motion re 43 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction. (Brenner, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
77 RESPONSE in Opposition re 69 MOTION to Stay Discovery filed by Douglas Dodson, Richard Little, Jasper L. Vick. (Smith, L.) (Entered: 10/17/2017)
78 REPLY to Response to Motion re 65 Supplemental MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction. (Brenner, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
79 MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation by CoreCivic. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
80 REPLY to Response to Motion re 46 MOTION to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment filed by CoreCivic. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Unpublished Cases)(Polly, Erin) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
81 DECLARATION of Beverly Atwood filed by CoreCivic re: 80 Reply to Response to Motion. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
82 DECLARATION of Bridgett Pierce filed by CoreCivic re: 80 Reply to Response to Motion. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
83 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 68 MOTION to Certify Class Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Class Certification by Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction. (Brenner, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/24/2017)
84 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 68 MOTION to Certify Class Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Class Certification by CoreCivic. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 10/24/2017)
85 MOTION for Leave to to File Reply re 69 MOTION to Stay Discovery, 77 Response in Opposition to Motion by CoreCivic. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Reply in Support of Defendant CoreCivic, Inc.'s Motion to Stay Discovery)(Polly, Erin) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
86 ORDER: Motion 85 GRANTED for Permission to File Reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 10/26/2017. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(mg) (Entered: 10/26/2017)
87 REPLY In Support of Defendant CoreCivic, Inc.'s Motion To Stay Discovery re 69 MOTION to Stay Discovery filed by CoreCivic. (mg) (Entered: 10/26/2017)
88 MOTION to Seal Document (Plaintiffs' Medical Records) by Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction. (Brenner, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/31/2017)
89 RESPONSE in Opposition re 68 MOTION to Certify Class Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Class Certification filed by Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Dodson Commissary Records, # 2 Attachment Vick Commissary Records, # 3 Attachment Judd Commissary Records, # 4 Attachment Young Commissary Records, # 5 Attachment Dodson TOMIS Disciplinary Record)(Brenner, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/01/2017)
90 AFFIDAVIT re 89 Response in Opposition to Motion, of Patricia Aldridge by Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction. (Brenner, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/01/2017)

Case: 3:17-cv-48 As of: 03/17/2020 12:54 PM CDT 10 of 17

11/01/2017 11/01/2017 11/01/2017 11/01/2017 11/03/2017 11/06/2017 11/06/2017 11/10/2017 11/15/2017 11/15/2017
11/15/2017
01/19/2018
01/26/2018 01/31/2018 02/02/2018

91 AFFIDAVIT re 89 Response in Opposition to Motion, of David Sutton Dated October 18, 2017 by Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction. (Brenner, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/01/2017)
92 AFFIDAVIT re 89 Response in Opposition to Motion, of David Sutton Dated October 16, 2017 by Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction. (Brenner, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/01/2017)
93 RESPONSE in Opposition re 68 MOTION to Certify Class Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Class Certification Memorandum of Law filed by CoreCivic. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Unpublished Cases)(Polly, Erin) (Entered: 11/01/2017)
94 DECLARATION of Patra Lineberry filed by CoreCivic re: 93 Response in Opposition to Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Documentation of Refusal)(Polly, Erin) (Entered: 11/01/2017)
95 ORDER granting 88 Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 11/3/2017. (ab) (Entered: 11/03/2017)
96 NOTICE of Filing by Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction re 89 Response in Opposition to Motion, (Brenner, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/06/2017)
97 Sealed Document (Plaintiffs' Medical Records) filed by Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction. (Brenner, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/06/2017)
98 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 93 Response in Opposition to Motion, 89 Response in Opposition to Motion, by Douglas Dodson, Richard Little, Jasper L. Vick. (Smith, L.) (Entered: 11/10/2017)
99 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Douglas Dodson, Richard Little, Jasper L. Vick. (Smith, L.) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
100 REPLY to Response to Motion re 68 MOTION to Certify Class Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Class Certification filed by Douglas Dodson, Richard Little, Jasper L. Vick. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A − Declaration of Jasper Vick, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B − Unpublished Cases)(Smith, L.) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
101 REPLY to Response to Motion re 68 MOTION to Certify Class Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Class Certification filed by Douglas Dodson, Richard Little, Jasper L. Vick. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A − Unpublished Cases)(Smith, L.) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
102 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE: Pursuant to the division of the docket, this case is transferred to Judge Chip Campbell. All previously imposed deadlines and Court dates remain unchanged, pending any further order from Judge Campbell. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 1/19/18. (af) (Entered: 01/19/2018)
103 NOTICE by CoreCivic of Withdrawal of Counsel (Welborn, Joseph) (Entered: 01/26/2018)
104 ORDER: The Clerk shall terminate Atty Nutini from this case. See Docket Entry No. 103 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 1/31/2018. (mg) (Entered: 01/31/2018)
105 ORDER: Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment ( 43 and 46 ) are denied as moot, given Plaintiffs' filing of an Amended Complaint ( 55 ). Defendants' Motions for Extensions of Time and to Exceed Page Limitations ( 64 , 75 , 79 , 83 , 84 , 98 and 99 ) are GRANTED but are essentially moot, as these extensions of time have passed and the documents exceeding page limitations have been filed. To the extent those documents have not already been provided, the Motion to Stay Discovery is DENIED, and CoreCivic shall provide any responsive documents to Plaintiffs by February 21, 2018. All other portions of CoreCivic's Motion to Stay Discovery are GRANTED. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 2/2/18. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(gb) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

Case: 3:17-cv-48 As of: 03/17/2020 12:54 PM CDT 11 of 17

03/05/2018 03/05/2018 03/05/2018 03/05/2018 03/06/2018
03/06/2018 03/06/2018 03/08/2018 03/08/2018 03/13/2018 03/14/2018 04/02/2018 04/02/2018 04/02/2018 04/02/2018 04/09/2018

106 MOTION to Intervene as Plaintiff by the American Diabetes Association by Douglas Dodson, Tazarius Leach, Richard Little, Jasper L. Vick. (Gilbert, Justin) (Entered: 03/05/2018)
107 MOTION for attorney(s) Alan Lawrence Yatvin to Appear Pro Hac Vice (paid $75 PHV fee; receipt number 0650−2624808) by Douglas Dodson, Tazarius Leach, Richard Little, Jasper L. Vick. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Certificate of Good Standing)(Gilbert, Justin) (Entered: 03/05/2018)
108 MOTION for attorney(s) Sarah Fech−Baughman to Appear Pro Hac Vice (paid $75 PHV fee; receipt number 0650−2624810) by Douglas Dodson, Tazarius Leach, Richard Little, Jasper L. Vick. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Certificate of Good Standing)(Gilbert, Justin) (Entered: 03/05/2018)
109 MOTION to Amend/Correct Motion to File Second Amended Complaint by Douglas Dodson, Richard Little, Jasper L. Vick. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Proposed Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Attachment Unpublished Case)(Smith, L.) (Entered: 03/05/2018)
Notice to Filer re DE 109 : Pursuant to Local Rule 5.01, all filings shall include a Certificate of Service and it shall identify by name the person served, what was served, the method of service, and date of service. Counsel SHALL FILE a conformed Certificate of Service for this document using the Certificate event located under Other Documents. (mg) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
110 CERTIFICATE Certificate of Service filed by Douglas Dodson, Richard Little, Jasper L. Vick re 109 MOTION to Amend/Correct Motion to File Second Amended Complaint filed by Jasper L. Vick, Douglas Dodson, Richard Little, Docket Annotation,. (Smith, L.) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
DC State Bar status verified as active for Sarah Fech−Baughman, and PA State Bar status verified as active for Alan L. Yatvin. (mg) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
111 ORDER granting 107 Motion for Alan Lawrence Yatvin to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 3/8/2018. (mg) (Entered: 03/08/2018)
112 ORDER granting 108 Motion for Sarah Fech−Baughman to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 3/8/2018. (mg) (Entered: 03/08/2018)
113 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 109 MOTION to Amend/Correct Motion to File Second Amended Complaint, 106 MOTION to Intervene as Plaintiff by the American Diabetes Association by CoreCivic, Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 03/13/2018)
114 ORDER granting 113 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re 109 MOTION for Leave to file Second Amended Complaint, and 106 MOTION to Intervene. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 3/14/2018. (mg) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
115 RESPONSE in Opposition re 106 MOTION to Intervene as Plaintiff by the American Diabetes Association filed by Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction. (Brenner, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/02/2018)
116 RESPONSE in Opposition re 109 MOTION to Amend/Correct Motion to File Second Amended Complaint filed by Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction. (Brenner, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/02/2018)
117 RESPONSE in Opposition re 106 MOTION to Intervene as Plaintiff by the American Diabetes Association filed by CoreCivic. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 04/02/2018)
118 RESPONSE in Opposition re 109 MOTION to Amend/Correct Motion to File Second Amended Complaint filed by CoreCivic. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 04/02/2018)
119 MOTION for Leave to File Reply by American Diabetes Association. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Proposed Reply, # 2 Attachment Unpublished Decision)(Fech−Baughman, Sarah) (Entered: 04/09/2018)

Case: 3:17-cv-48 As of: 03/17/2020 12:54 PM CDT 12 of 17

04/10/2018

120 ORDER granting 119 Motion for Leave to File Consolidated Reply to Defendants' Opposition to American Diabetes Association's Motion to Intervene. The Clerk is instructed to file the attached reply. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 4/10/2018. (mg) Modified text on 4/12/2018 (mg). (Entered: 04/11/2018)

04/10/2018

121 AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION'S PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED REPLY to Defendants' Opposition to American Diabetes Association's Motion to Intervene re 115 Response in Opposition to Motion re 106 Motion to Intervene. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Unpublished Decision) (mg) (Entered: 04/11/2018)

04/16/2018 122 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report by Douglas Dodson, Tazarius Leach, Richard Little, Jasper L. Vick. (Smith, L.) (Entered: 04/16/2018)

04/18/2018 123 MOTION for Leave to for Permission to File Surreply re 121 Reply, by CoreCivic. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 04/18/2018)

04/19/2018 124 ORDER: Motion 123 GRANTED for Leave to File Surreply. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 4/19/2018. (mg) (Entered: 04/19/2018)

04/27/2018 125 REPLY to Response to Motion re 106 MOTION to Intervene as Plaintiff by the American Diabetes Association Surreply in Opposition filed by CoreCivic. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Unpublished Cases)(Polly, Erin) (Entered: 04/27/2018)

04/30/2018 126 SUGGESTION OF DEATH Upon the Record as to Plaintiff, John Young by CoreCivic. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 04/30/2018)

05/14/2018

127 ORDER: The Court will hold a status conference in this action on Thursday, May 24, 2018, at 1:30 p.m. Given the age of pending motions, the Court has questions about the status of factual matters therein; this conference is not, however, a time for further argument of the pending Motions. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 5/14/2018. (mg) (Entered: 05/14/2018)

05/16/2018 128 Joint MOTION to Continue Reschedule Status Conference by CoreCivic. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 05/16/2018)

05/17/2018 129 ORDER granting 128 Motion to Continue the status conference. The status conference is reset for May 29, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 5/17/2018. (mg) (Entered: 05/18/2018)

05/25/2018 130 MOTION to Excuse Charles P. Yezbak, III Ffrom the May 29, 2018 Status Conference by Douglas Dodson, Richard Little, Jasper L. Vick. (Yezbak, Charles) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

05/25/2018 131 ORDER: Motion 130 GRANTED for local counsel Charles Yezbak to be excused from attending the status conference. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 5/25/2018. (mg) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

05/25/2018 132 MOTION for Leave to Appear by Telephone by American Diabetes Association. (Gilbert, Justin) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

05/25/2018 133 ORDER: Motion 132 GRANTED. Mr. Gilbert may appear by telephone by calling 1−866−390−1828 and enter 7884640# access code. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 5/25/2018. (mg) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

05/29/2018

134 ORDER: Pending before the Court are Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 59 and 65 ); Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Doc. No. 68 ); the American Diabetes Association's Motion to Intervene (Doc. No. 106 ); and Plaintiffs' Motion to File Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 109 ). The Court held a Status Conference on May 29, 2018. As a result of that Status Conference and because of the length of time since the filing of the pending motions, the stay of discovery (Doc. No. 105 ) is partially lifted, as set forth herein. The parties shall have sixty (60) days, until July 30, 2018, to take written discovery and depositions related solely to the following three issues: (1) Plaintiffs' compliance with diabetic medical care while they were at Trousdale; (2) Plaintiffs' exhaustion of administrative remedies as to the issues in this action; and (3) When and why Plaintiffs were transferred from Trousdale to other facilities. The parties shall have until August 20, 2018, to file supplemental briefs on the pending motions, based on any additional information obtained in this limited discovery. No further briefing will be allowed on the pending motions absent Order of the Court. All claims of Plaintiffs Little and Young are DISMISSED. Signed by

Case: 3:17-cv-48 As of: 03/17/2020 12:54 PM CDT 13 of 17

06/15/2018 06/15/2018 06/19/2018
08/20/2018 08/27/2018 08/28/2018 10/02/2018
10/03/2018 10/03/2018
10/03/2018 10/03/2018

District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 5/29/2018. (mg) (Entered: 05/30/2018)
135 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion by Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction. (Brenner, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/15/2018)
136 MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Dispositive Motion by CoreCivic. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 06/15/2018)
137 ORDER: Pending before the Court are the State Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File a Dispositive Motion (Docket No. 135 ) and Defendant CoreCivic's Motion for Extension of Time to File a Dispositive Motion (Docket No. 136 ). These Motions are GRANTED, and the Dispositive Motion deadline is extended to August 30, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 6/19/2018. (mg) (Entered: 06/19/2018)
138 BRIEF filed by Douglas Dodson, Jasper L. Vick re 134 Order, Set Deadlines. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Unpublished Cases, # 2 Exhibit B, Declaration of Jasper Vick, # 3 Exhibit C, Declaration of Douglas Dodson, # 4 Exhibit D, Response to Interrogatory No. 3)(Smith, L.) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
139 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File by CoreCivic and TDOC by CoreCivic. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 08/27/2018)
140 ORDER granting 139 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 8/28/2018. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(am) (Entered: 08/28/2018)
141 ORDER: Jury Trial set for 6/25/2019 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom A826 before District Judge William L. Campbell Jr. Pretrial Conference set for 6/17/2019 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom A826 before District Judge William L. Campbell Jr. Joint Proposed Pretrial Order due by 6/10/2019. Exhibit List and Witness List due by 6/10/2019. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 10/2/2018. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw) (Entered: 10/03/2018)
142 MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT re Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 10/3/18. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(af) (Entered: 10/03/2018)
143 ORDER: Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Doc. No. 68). For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED, and the Court certifies a class as follows: All inmates with Type I and insulin−dependent Type II diabetes who are or may become housed at Trousdale Turner Correctional Facility and who require access to blood sugar checks and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes. The Court appoints the named Plaintiffs, Dodson and Vick, as class representatives and their counsel will be appointed as class counsel. This case is referred to the Magistrate Judge to determine which of Plaintiff's counsel's four law firms shall be appointed as class counsel. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 10/3/18. (af) (Entered: 10/03/2018)
144 MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT re Motion to Intervene as Plaintiff filed by the American Diabetes Association and a related Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 10/3/18. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(af) (Entered: 10/03/2018)
145 ORDER: Pending before the Court are a Motion to Intervene as Plaintiff (Doc. No. 106), filed by the American Diabetes Association ("the Association"), and a related Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 109), filed by Plaintiffs. For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Association's Motion to Intervene is DENIED, and the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is also DENIED. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 10/3/18. (af) (Entered: 10/03/2018)

Case: 3:17-cv-48 As of: 03/17/2020 12:54 PM CDT 14 of 17

10/03/2018
10/03/2018
10/05/2018
10/19/2018 10/24/2018 01/15/2019 01/15/2019 01/15/2019 01/16/2019 01/17/2019
01/28/2019 01/28/2019

146 MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT re Defendant CoreCivic's Supplemental Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment and Defendants Tennessee Department of Corrections and Tony Parker's Supplemental Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 10/3/18. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(af) (Entered: 10/03/2018)
147 ORDER: Pending before the Court are Defendant CoreCivic's Supplemental Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 59) and Defendants Tennessee Department of Corrections and Tony Parker's Supplemental Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 65). For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, Defendants Tennessee Department of Corrections and Tony Parker's Supplemental Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 65) is DENIED. Defendant CoreCivic's Supplemental Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 59) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's ADA claims against CoreCivic are DISMISSED. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 10/3/18. (af) (Entered: 10/03/2018)
148 ORDER: Counsel are directed to meet and confer to determine whether they can reach an agreement regarding which of the four firms will be appointed lead counsel and apprise the Court through a notice if an agreement can be reached. In the event an agreement cannot be reached, any counsel wishing to serve as lead counsel for the class shall file a motion with the Court to be appointed lead counsel. The notice or motions shall be filed on or before November 1, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 10/5/2018. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw) (Entered: 10/09/2018)
149 NOTICE by Douglas Dodson, Edward Judd, Tazarius Leach, Richard Little, Jasper L. Vick re 148 Order,, Notice Regarding Lead Counsel (Goldfarb, Jon) (Entered: 10/19/2018)
150 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to District Judge Eli J. Richardson for all further proceedings. District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr no longer assigned to case. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 10/24/2018. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw) (Entered: 10/25/2018)
151 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion by CoreCivic. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 01/15/2019)
152 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction. (Brenner, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/15/2019)
153 MEMORANDUM in Support of 152 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Correction . (Brenner, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/15/2019)
154 ORDER granting 151 Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion. The Dispositive Motion deadline is extended to February 13, 2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 1/16/2019. (jw) (Entered: 01/16/2019)
155 ORDER: Defendants Tennessee Department of Correction and Commissioner Tony Parker filed a Motion to Dismiss and supporting documents. Docket Nos. 152−153. According to the Case Management Order filed on April 7, 2017, any Response is due 28 days after the filing of the Motion, and any Reply shall be filed within 14 days after the filing of the Response. Docket No. 33. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 1/17/2019. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
156 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 153 Memorandum in Support, 152 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Douglas Dodson, Jasper L. Vick. (Smith, L.) (Entered: 01/28/2019)
157 ORDER granting re 156 MOTION for Extension of Time. Plaintiff's response is due on or before March 13, 2019. Any reply is due on or before March 27, 2019. Signed by District Judge Eli J. Richardson on 1/28/2019. (jw) (Entered: 01/28/2019)

Case: 3:17-cv-48 As of: 03/17/2020 12:54 PM CDT 15 of 17

03/01/2019 159 Letter to the Court from Robert Saunders requesting copies of Complaint and Motion to Intervene. (jw) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

03/04/2019 158 Joint MOTION to Continue All Remaining Deadlines by CoreCivic. (Polly, Erin) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

03/04/2019 160 ORDER granting 158 Motion to Continue. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Frensley to set new case management deadlines and recommend a new trial date. Signed by District Judge Eli J. Richardson on 3/4/2019. (jw) (Entered: 03/05/2019)

03/05/2019

161 ORDER: Telephone Conference set for 4/1/2019 at 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 3/5/2019. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw) (Entered: 03/05/2019)

04/01/2019

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley: Telephone Conference held on 4/1/2019. Parties working on settlement. No order to enter. (Tape #Not Recorded.) (hv) (Entered: 04/01/2019)

04/26/2019 162 Joint MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement by CoreCivic. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Proposed Judgment, # 2 Exhibit B − Class Notice)(Welborn, Joseph) (Entered: 04/26/2019)

04/26/2019 163 MEMORANDUM in Support of 162 Joint MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by CoreCivic . (Welborn, Joseph) (Entered: 04/26/2019)

05/02/2019

164 ORDER: Pending before the Court are a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc. No. 162), a Proposed Judgment (Doc. No. 162−1), a Proposed Notice (Doc. No. 162−2), and a Memorandum in Support of the Joint Motion (Doc. No. 163). The Court will hold a telephone conference concerning this Joint Motion on Tuesday, May 7, 2019, at 10:30 a.m. to discuss concerns the Court has about the Proposed Judgment and Proposed Notice. Signed by District Judge Eli J. Richardson on 5/2/2019. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw) (Entered: 05/02/2019)

05/07/2019 165 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Eli J. Richardson: Telephone Conference held on 5/7/2019. (Court Reporter Debbie Watson.)(Hearing lasted :30)(Jackson, Julie) (Entered: 05/07/2019)

05/16/2019

166 Joint MOTION for Settlement Amended Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement by CoreCivic. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Proposed Judgment, # 2 Exhibit B − Notice to Settlement Class Members)(Welborn, Joseph) (Entered: 05/16/2019)

05/16/2019 167 MEMORANDUM in Support of 166 Joint MOTION for Settlement Amended Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by CoreCivic Amended. (Welborn, Joseph) (Entered: 05/16/2019)

05/23/2019

168 ORDER: The Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc. No. 166) is GRANTED. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on July 25, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. to consider any Objections to, and final approval of, the proposed Judgment. Signed by District Judge Eli J. Richardson on 5/23/2019. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw) (Entered: 05/23/2019)

05/23/2019

169 ORDER: All claims against the Tennessee Department of Corrections and Commissioner Tony Parker are DISMISSED with prejudice. Edward Judd is no longer a plaintiff in this action. All claims of Edward Judd are also DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Eli J. Richardson on 5/23/2019. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw) (Entered: 05/23/2019)

06/14/2019 170 Letter to the Court from Billy Farris. (jw) (Entered: 06/17/2019)

07/09/2019 171 NOTICE of Receipt of Judgment filed by Michael A. Campbell, TDOC #121566. (jw) (Entered: 07/09/2019)

07/25/2019

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Eli J. Richardson: Fairness Hearing held on 7/25/2019. (Court Reporter Debbie Watson.) (Hearing lasted

Case: 3:17-cv-48 As of: 03/17/2020 12:54 PM CDT 16 of 17

07/25/2019 02/05/2020

:25)(Jackson, Julie) (Entered: 07/25/2019)
172 JUDGMENT in favor of Douglas Dodson, Jasper L. Vick against CoreCivic. Signed by District Judge Eli J. Richardson on 7/25/2019. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw) (Entered: 07/26/2019)
173 Letter from Jason Cunningham regarding prison conditions. (gb) (Entered: 02/06/2020)

Case: 3:17-cv-48 As of: 03/17/2020 12:54 PM CDT 17 of 17

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

DOUGLAS DODSON, TAZARIUS LEACH, RICHARD LITTLE, JASPER VICK, ET AL,
PLAINTIFFS,
V.
CORECIVIC, FORMERLY d/b/a CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA and THE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
and TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION COMMISSIONER TONY PARKER
in his Official Capacity
DEFENDANTS.

) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The plaintiffs and the proposed class are incarcerated in the Tennessee

Department of Corrections (“TDOC”) and housed at Trousdale Turner Correctional

Facility (“Trousdale Turner”) in Hartsville, TN, a private prison owned and operated

1 Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 33 PageID #: 1

by CoreCivic, an entity formerly doing business as Corrections Corporation of America (“CCA”). The plaintiffs and the proposed class are persons with insulindependent diabetes and require blood sugar monitoring and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes in order to survive. They are entirely dependent upon Defendants TDOC, Parker, and CCA to provide them with access to basic diabetes care. However, they have been, and continue to be, deprived of access to basic diabetes care while incarcerated at Trousdale Turner Correctional Facility. 2. Defendant TDOC and Defendant Parker, who is sued only in his official capacity as the head of the Department, have denied the Plaintiffs accommodation for their disability as required by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act by assigning them to incarceration at Trousdale Turner, where, due to understaffing and undertraining, reasonable accommodations for persons with insulin-dependent diabetes are either not available or are routinely denied. 3. Defendant CCA has subjected the plaintiffs and the plaintiff class to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by implementing policies and practices, including understaffing and undertraining, which manifest deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs’ serious medical needs, resulting in denial of access to basic diabetes care and serious physical injury to the
2
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 2 of 33 PageID #: 2

plaintiffs and the proposed class, constituting cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 4. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief to redress the deprivation under color of state law of rights secured by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983"), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134 (“Title II”), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq (“Section 504"). 5. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the class they seek to represent, seek an injunction preventing Defendants TDOC and Parker from assigning persons with insulin-dependent diabetes to Trousdale Turner and requiring that all persons with insulin-dependent diabetes presently incarcerated at Trousdale Turner be transferred to other diabetic compliant facilities until such time as CCA implements the permanent relief sought from it in this lawsuit, namely, the maintenance of appropriate staffing levels and training to ensure that inmates have access to basic diabetes care in coordination with regular mealtimes. Plaintiffs seek permanent injunctive relief requiring Defendant CCA to remedy the conditions constituting cruel and unusual punishment and requiring Defendant TDOC to assign diabetic prisoners only to facilities where reasonable accommodations for their disabilities are available and provided. Finally, Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring the
3
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 3 of 33 PageID #: 3

implementation of independent monitoring sufficient to ensure that the serious medical needs of persons with insulin dependent diabetes at Trousdale Turner are being met and that persons with insulin-dependent diabetes are provided reasonable accommodations, including access to basic diabetes care. II. JURISDICTION, VENUE AND ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES 6. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 USC §§ 1342, 2201 and 2202, 29 U.S.C. § 749a, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 12133. Venue is proper in the Middle District of Tennessee Nashville Division under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b). 7. Plaintiffs have complied with all requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) in that they have exhausted their administrative remedies and all appeals that were available. To the extent that administrative remedies remain unexhausted, Plaintiffs are entitled to a injunctive relief while they continue to exhaust administrative grievance procedures. III. PARTIES 8. Plaintiff Douglas Dodson has been an insulin-dependent Type 1 Diabetic since 2007. He is currently incarcerated at Trousdale Turner Correctional Center in Hartsville, TN.
4
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 4 of 33 PageID #: 4

9. Plaintiff Tazarius Leach has been an insulin-dependent Type 1 Diabetic since 2003. He has been incarcerated at Trousdale Turner Correctional Center in Hartsville, TN since January 7, 2016. 10. Plaintiff Richard Little is an insulin-dependant Type II diabetic. He is currently incarcerated at Trousdale Turner Correctional Center in Hartsville, TN. 11. Plaintiff Jasper Vick has been insulin dependent since 2010. He is currently incarcerated at Trousdale Turner Correctional Center in Hartsville, TN. 12. The Defendant, CoreCivic, previously doing business as Corrections Corporation of America, (“CCA”), is a private Real Estate Investment Trust which owns and operates the Trousdale Turner Prison under contract with the State Department of Correction, housing prisoners sentenced to confinement in the Department of Correction. As such, CCA performs a public function traditionally reserved to the state and is therefore subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 13. The Defendant, Tennessee State Department of Correction (“TDOC”), is a recipient of federal funds through numerous federal grants and programs, including grants to states for workplace and community transition training for incarcerated individuals. It therefore constitutes a “program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance” as that phrase is used in Section 504.
5
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 5 of 33 PageID #: 5

14. The Defendant, Tennessee State Department of Correction (“TDOC”), is also a “public entity” providing services, programs, or activities as those terms are used by Title II of the ADA and is subject to suit for injunctive relief under that statute. Plaintiffs seek only injunctive relief, not damages, so TDOC is not immune from suit. In addition, Congress has validly abrogated TDOC’s sovereign immunity under Title II in regard to the allegations at issue in this lawsuit because TDOC’s conduct independently violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment Guarantee of substantive due process. 15. CCA is an “instrumentality” of the Tennessee Department of Corrections as that term is defined in Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (1)(B). This is so because, as stated above, the Department of Corrections, a state entity, is subject to Title II and obligated to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled individuals in its custody. CCA is the instrumentality through which such accommodations must be provided, if they are provided at all, to prisoners at CCA’s Trousdale Turner Correctional Center. Accordingly, CCA is subject to suit under Title II of the ADA. 16. Individual Defendant TDOC Commissioner Tony Parker (“Commissioner Parker”) is sued in his official capacity and as the head of a “public entity” providing services, programs, or activities as those terms are used by Title II and Section 504. IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
6
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 6 of 33 PageID #: 6

17. Plaintiffs seek class certification of all claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(1), and (b)(2). The Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole. 18. The class is defined as persons with insulin-dependent diabetes (Type 1 or insulin dependent Type 2) who are, who have been, or who in the future may become, housed at Trousdale Turner correctional facility. 19. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Upwards of sixty (60) persons with Type 1 or insulin-dependent Type 2 diabetes are currently housed at Trousdale Turner Correctional Facility. The Plaintiff class members are readily identifiable using records maintained in the regular course of business by Defendants TDOC and CCA. 20. There are questions of law and fact common to the proposed class. These common questions include whether Defendant CCA has a policy or practice of maintaining staffing levels insufficient to ensure that inmates have access to basic diabetes care in coordination with regular mealtimes. 21. Another common question is whether Defendant CCA fails to train its corrections officers adequately in regard to the medical needs of insulin-dependent diabetic inmates in deliberate indifference to the obvious need for such training, and
7
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 7 of 33 PageID #: 7

whether it maintains its understaffing and lack of training in deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of its insulin-dependent diabetic inmates. 22. Another common question is whether, as a result of Defendant CCA’s policy and practice of understaffing and undertraining, corrections officers and medical staff are unable to provide class members with access to basic diabetes care, including blood sugar checks and insulin administration, in coordination with regular mealtimes according to the schedule set by medical staff and displayed on the card the inmate carries. 23. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of those of the proposed class, as their claims arise from the same policies, practices, acts, and omissions as those of the Plaintiff class. The named Plaintiffs’ claims are based on the same theory as the claims of the class. Each named Plaintiff has been injured as a result of Defendants’ actions addressed in this lawsuit in the same way as the other members of the proposed class. 24. The named representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The named Plaintiffs do not have any interests antagonistic to the interests of the class. The named plaintiffs, on behalf of the proposed class, seek to enjoin the unlawful acts and omissions of Defendants. Finally, the named Plaintiffs are
8
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 8 of 33 PageID #: 8

represented by counsel experienced in civil rights litigation, prisoners’ rights litigation, and complex class action litigation. 25. This action is maintainable as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) because the number of current members of the proposed class is in excess of sixty (60), and prosecution of separate actions by individuals seeking the same injunctive relief would create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications, with the risk of establishing incompatible standards for the party opposing the class. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members could result in adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. 26. This action is also maintainable as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole, as Plaintiffs seek an injunction to prevent Defendant TDOC from assigning persons with diabetes to Trousdale Turner, and assuring that all persons with insulin-dependent diabetes presently assigned to Trousdale Turner are transferred to other facilities, until such time as CCA implements the permanent relief sought from it in this lawsuit, namely, the maintenance of appropriate staffing levels and training to ensure that inmates have access to basic diabetes care in
9
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 9 of 33 PageID #: 9

coordination with regular mealtimes in accordance with the directions of medical staff. 27. Certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) is further appropriate because Plaintiffs seek permanent injunctive relief requiring Defendant CCA to remedy the conditions constituting cruel and unusual punishment and requiring Defendant TDOC to assign diabetic prisoners only to facilities where reasonable accommodations for their disabilities are provided in accordance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 28. Finally, certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) is appropriate because Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring the implementation of independent monitoring sufficient to ensure that the medical needs of persons with insulindependent diabetes at Trousdale Turner are being met and that persons with insulindependent diabetes are provided with reasonable accommodations including access to basic diabetes care in coordination with regular mealtimes in accordance with the directions of medical staff as required by Title II, Section 504, and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 29. The injuries of each named Plaintiff and the Plaintiff class are actual, imminent, and ongoing, as they continue to be denied basic diabetes care. To the extent any named representative is transferred to another facility pursuant to the relief requested
10
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 10 of 33 PageID #: 10

in this lawsuit or for other reasons, that plaintiff will continue to have standing and will continue to be an adequate class representative in the absence of the permanent relief this lawsuit seeks. Because Tennessee law dictates that “[a]ny inmate sentenced to confinement in the department shall be legally eligible to be incarcerated in a facility in which a prison contractor is providing correctional services,” Tenn. Code § 41-24-103(c), each named Plaintiff will continue to face a real and immediate threat of incarceration at Trousdale Turner and of future injury and will continue to have standing to pursue injunctive relief. V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. Trousdale Turner Correctional Facility and the Corrections Corporation of America.
30. Trousdale Turner Correctional Facility (“Trousdale Turner”) opened in January, 2016 as a newly constructed facility located in Hartsville, Tennessee. 31. Trousdale Turner is owned and operated by CoreCivic, a company formerly doing business as Corrections Corporation of America (“CCA”), a for-profit prison owner and operator of private prisons nationwide, under a contract with the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”). 32. Trousdale Turner is a medium security facility with a capacity of 2552 male inmates.
11
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 11 of 33 PageID #: 11

33. CCA is a publicly traded real estate investment trust. CCA manages or owns 66 correctional and detention facilities with a capacity of approximately 90,000 beds in 19 states and the District of Columbia. In 2015, CCA reported a total revenue of $1.79 billion. 34. In Tennessee, in addition to the Trousdale Turner facility, CCA owns and operates the Whiteville Correctional Facility. Pursuant to contractual agreements, CCA manages the South Central Correctional Center, the Metro-Davidson County Detention Facility and the Hardeman County Correctional Facility. 35. In conjunction with federal and local governments, CCA also owns and operates the West Tennessee Detention Facility in Mason, Tennessee, and manages the Silverdale Detention Facilities in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which house federal and local inmate and detainee populations.
B. CCA’s Policy and Practice of Understaffing and Undertraining. 36. In order to maximize profits, CCA has a policy and practice of reducing staffing, sometimes even below the levels called for in its contracts with entities such as the Tennessee Department of Corrections. 37. Since its opening, Trousdale Turner has been understaffed, and staffing has been insufficient to ensure safe and efficient inmate movement within the facility. For instance, as a result of understaffing of corrections officers, inmates are not allowed
12
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 12 of 33 PageID #: 12

to use the exercise yard or to visit the “chow hall” for meals because CCA lacks sufficient numbers of corrections officers and other correctional staff to safely and efficiently move inmates in large groups according to a regular schedule. 38. Similarly, the medical clinic at the prison is understaffed. Although the facility has a capacity of 2552 inmates, currently there is no medical doctor on staff, as the physician previously assigned to the prison resigned and has not been replaced. The current medical staff consists of four (4) nurses and two (2) nurse practitioner. 39. Trousdale Turner does not employ a nutritionist. 40. This understaffing is the result of CCA’s policy and practice of minimizing staffing in order to cut costs and maximize profits. 41. As a result of CAA’s policy and practice of understaffing, Defendant CCA is often unable to provide persons with insulin-dependent diabetes with access to basic diabetes care, including blood sugar checks and insulin administration coordinated with regular mealtimes and a diabetic appropriate diet. 42. In addition, Trousale Turner’s corrections staff consists largely of corrections officers with no previous experience in corrections. Defendant CCA does not adequately train corrections officers regarding the need to provide diabetic prisoners with access to basic diabetes care, including blood sugar checks and insulin
13
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 13 of 33 PageID #: 13

administration coordinated with regular mealtimes, despite the obvious and repeatedly demonstrated need for such training. 43. As a result of Defendant’s policy and practice of understaffing and undertraining, corrections officers are not adequately trained in the need to provide persons with insulin-dependent diabetes with access to basic diabetes care, including blood sugar checks and insulin administration coordinated with regular mealtimes. 44. CCA fails to train its corrections officers adequately in the need to provide persons with insulin-dependent diabetes with access to basic diabetes care, including blood sugar checks and insulin administration coordinated with regular mealtimes, despite knowing of the need for such training, and maintains its understaffing in deliberate indifference of the serious medical needs of its insulin-dependent diabetic inmates.
C. Diabetes Mellitus. 45. Trousdale Turner facility houses upwards of sixty prisoners who have been diagnosed with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes and who require insulin injections. 46. In type 1 diabetes, the pancreas stops making insulin or makes only a tiny amount. Type 1 develops when the body’s immune system destroys beta cells in the pancreas, the only cells in the body that make insulin. Thus, the body is no longer
14
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 14 of 33 PageID #: 14

able to produce significant amounts of insulin, and a person with type 1 diabetes must receive insulin from an outside source in order to survive. 47. Insulin is typically administered through injections or use of an insulin pump, a small mechanical device that administers insulin through a tube into a permanent injection site. Failure to administer insulin in a timely manner to a person with type 1 diabetes can lead to diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), a potentially fatal condition caused by severely elevated blood glucose levels. Similarly, failure to appropriately monitor blood sugar levels, or delayed access to food after insulin is administered, can lead to a drastic drop in blood sugar levels resulting in the diabetic losing consciousness, going into a coma or dying. 48. Type 2 diabetes is by far the most common type of diabetes—approximately 95% of people with diabetes have type 2 diabetes. In type 2 diabetes, the body retains the ability to make insulin, but the amount of insulin it does make does not adequately serve the body’s needs. It is generally believed that in people with type 2 diabetes the body’s cells cannot recognize insulin or use it as effectively as in people without diabetes (a condition known as insulin resistance). Generally over time the strain on the pancreas will decrease its ability to produce insulin and will cause blood glucose levels to rise. Some people with type 2, particularly in the early stages of the disease, can control their diabetes solely through diet and exercise. Treatment may then
15
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 15 of 33 PageID #: 15

progress to use of oral medications. Finally, as the disease progresses, some people with type 2 diabetes may receive insulin administrations as frequently as a person with type 1 diabetes. However, people with type 2 diabetes, even those who use insulin, have a much lower chance of experiencing deadly diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) than a person with type 1 diabetes. 49. Insulin and oral medications which lower blood glucose levels are used to treat diabetes. All types of insulin and some oral medications can lower blood glucose levels too much, leading to a potentially dangerous condition known as hypoglycemia (low blood glucose levels). The medical definition of hypoglycemia is a blood sugar reading of 70 mg/dL or below. Symptoms of mild to moderate hypoglycemia include tremors, sweating, lightheadedness, irritability, confusion, and drowsiness. 50. Hypoglycemia usually can be treated easily and effectively by consuming a ready source of glucose such as fruit juice. If it is not treated promptly, however, hypoglycemia can become severe and potentially life-threatening. Symptoms of severe hypoglycemia include inability to swallow, convulsions or unconsciousness. 51. All people with type 1 diabetes, and some people with type 2 (those who are taking insulin or oral medications which lower blood glucose levels) will experience hypoglycemia.
16
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 16 of 33 PageID #: 16

52. Hyperglycemia (high blood glucose) can cause a host of symptoms and can also eventually lead to more severe consequences. 53. The symptoms of mild to moderate hyperglycemia include hunger, thirst and dehydration, headache, nausea, fatigue, blurry vision, frequent urination, and itchy and dry skin. Individuals with hyperglycemia can also have fruity smelling breath, which can be mistaken for the smell of alcohol. In addition to these short-term consequences of acute hyperglycemia, chronic high blood glucose levels can cause a number of very serious long-term complications, such as nerve damage, heart disease, blindness, kidney failure, stroke, and death. Thus, in situations where a person is unable to take medication to address high blood glucose for an extended period of time, their chances of experiencing these health complications rises. 54. If a person who needs insulin is not able to take that medication for a period ranging from several hours to several days, he or she can experience diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Type 1 diabetes has a greatly increased risk of DKA as compared to type 2 diabetes. DKA is a life-threatening and often deadly consequence of a shortage of insulin. The body begins to burn fatty acids for energy since it cannot use the glucose without insulin. The byproduct of breaking down fatty acids are ketone bodies, which render the blood acidic. Diabetic ketoacidosis, if left untreated,
17
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 17 of 33 PageID #: 17

will eventually result in death. Diabetic ketoacidosis requires immediate hospitalization, often in the intensive care unit.
D. Diabetic Care at Trousdale Turner Correctional Facility. 55. At Trousdale Turner, persons with insulin-dependent diabetes are provided with ID cards identifying them to corrections officers and medical staff as diabetics. 56. Due to underfunding and understaffing, Trousdale Turner does not have a sufficient medical staff. As stated above, the current staff consists of four (4) nurses, two (2) nurse practitioners, and currently no physician. 57. The medical staff has assigned each insulin dependent diabetic inmate a schedule of times when the inmate is supposed to receive insulin and/or blood sugar checks. This schedule of times is printed on a card that the inmate carries with him. 58. The schedule of blood sugar checks and insulin administration set by the medical staff is intended to be coordinated with regular mealtimes, as persons with insulin-dependent diabetes must check blood sugar and take fast-acting insulin before eating. 59. As stated above, Trousdale Turner employs no nutritionist due to its policies of understaffing and underfunding. This means that meals are unpredictable in timing and content for persons with insulin-dependent diabetes, contrary to medical directions.
18
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 18 of 33 PageID #: 18

60. Further, as a result of Defendant’s policy of understaffing and undertraining, mealtimes have been irregular at Trousdale Turner since the facility opened in 2016, and are often not timed by corrections staff to allow coordination with access to basic diabetes care, including blood sugar checks and insulin administration. 61. This leads to insulin-dependent being forced to eat diabetic inappropriate meals without first being allowed to check blood sugar or take insulin, or being required to forgo blood sugar checks or insulin entirely. 62. Plaintiff Tazarius Leach states, “I have been at Trousdale Prison since Jan. 7th. I been having problems getting Insulin. Some days I don’t receive insulin at all or on time.” Plaintiff Richard little states that “With all the problems that go by on a daily basis and as a pill and insulin diabetic I have been denied my diabetes shot and mental health medications so many times that I stopped counting.” Plaintiff Douglas Dodson states, “Well to start with it was a few days in February that all the diabetics went without any insulin...” 63. CCA has no dietician on staff at Trousdale Turner. As a result, diabetic inmates are denied access to diabetic appropriate nutrition, contrary to the direction of medical staff.
19
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 19 of 33 PageID #: 19

64. The understaffing and underfunding of the medical department also results in inmates being denied access to basic diabetes care because the medical department lacks staff or equipment to provide such care when needed. 65. Inmates have been on lockdown numerous times since the opening of the Trousdale Turner facility in January, 2016, sometimes being required to remain in their cells for three weeks or more without access to showers or exercise facilities. 66. Lockdowns at Trousdale Turner have occurred not just for disciplinary purposes, but also because, as a result of CCA’s policy and practice of understaffing, the facility lacks adequate staffing to enable inmate movement within the facility. 67. During periods of lockdown or at other times of restricted inmate movement, inmates must rely on corrections staff to provide access to medical staff for diabetic care. During lockdowns or at other times of restricted movement, inmates must be “called” by corrections officers or medical staff for basic diabetes care, including blood sugar checks and insulin administration. 68. During periods of lockdown, or because it is frequently not possible due to understaffing for corrections officers to safely move inmates in large numbers, inmates are given meals on trays in their cells rather than in the “chow hall” or cafeteria. Meals are provided at irregular and often unpredictable times and are often not diabetic appropriate despite medical directions for a diabetic appropriate diet.
20
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 20 of 33 PageID #: 20

69. At such times, inmates are frequently forced to eat their meals and only then, sometimes two to three hours after eating, allowed to go for blood sugar checks or insulin injections. This occurred, for instance, between August 29, 2016 and September 18, 2016 and has recurred several times, with a high likelihood of recurrence in the future. Such unconscionable delay in receiving basic diabetes care is the functional equivalent of receiving no care at all and is the direct result of Defendant CCA’s policy or practice of understaffing and undertraining. 70. Dodson states that as of September, 2016, “We have been on ... facility lock down for the biggest part of September and just about everyday for the lunch, 12:00 and evening at 4:30 acute check we have been forced to eat our meals and wait 2 to 3 hours and then go have our blood sugars checked...” Dodson further states, “on 913-2016 and 9-14-2016 we were not even called for the 4:30 pm evening diabetic call, so ... no diabetic received any insulin whatsoever for these evening diabetic calls.” 71. According to Dodson, “from 8-29-2016 to 9-18-2016 while on a facility lockdown all diabetics were forced to eat our evening meals without being able to get our blood sugar checked and receiving our insulin, it would be 2 or 3 hours before we were called to get it if we even got called.”
21
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 21 of 33 PageID #: 21

72. Sometimes, diabetic call does not occur due to understaffing or as a result of undertraining. On such occasions inmates are not allowed to check blood sugar or receive insulin in coordination with meals and are completely denied access to basic diabetes care as a result of Defendant’s policy of understaffing or failure to train. 73. At such times, as a result of deliberate indifference and the policies of understaffing and undertraining, Defendant CCA frequently and routinely denies inmates access to basic diabetes care including blood sugar checks and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes. 74. As a result of being denied basic diabetes care, the plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class have suffered, and continue to suffer, ongoing physical injuries. 75. Plaintiff Douglas Dodson has experienced numerous diabetes-related complications as a result of being denied access to basic diabetes care, including blood sugar checks and insulin. These complications include consistently high blood sugar, DKA, diabetic neuropathy, and other serious medical complications, including life threatening fluctuations in blood sugar levels, while incarcerated at Trousdale Turner. Dodson has filed grievances but has received no responses. 76. Plaintiff Tazarius Leach has experienced numerous diabetes-related complications as a result of being denied access to basic diabetes care, including blood sugar checks and insulin. These complications include consistently high blood
22
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 22 of 33 PageID #: 22

sugar, DKA, degraded vision, and diabetic neuropathy, and other serious diabetes complications. 77. Plaintiff Richard Little has experienced numerous diabetes-related complications as a result of being denied access to basic diabetes care, including blood sugar checks and insulin. These complications include consistently high blood sugar, DKA, degraded vision, and diabetic neuropathy, and other serious diabetes complications. 78. Plaintiff Jasper Vick has experienced numerous diabetes-related complications as a result of being denied access to basic diabetes care, including blood sugar checks and insulin. These complications include, degraded vision, and diabetic neuropathy, and other serious diabetes complications. VI. Count I – Failure to Accommodate and Discrimination on the Basis of
Disability Resulting in Physical Injury under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 79. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-78 above with the same force and effect as if fully set out in specific detail below. 80. Plaintiffs bring this Count against Defendant CCA (Title II) and Defendant DOC (Section 504). Defendant CCA is a “instrumentality” of the Tennessee Department of Corrections as that term is defined in Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (1)(B). The Tennessee Department of Correction is a “program or activity
23
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 23 of 33 PageID #: 23

receiving Federal financial assistance” as that phrase is used in Section 504. It is also a “public entity” providing services, programs, or activities as those terms are used by Title II of the ADA and is subject to suit under that statute. 81. Defendant CCA is sued for injunctive relief under Title II. Defendant TDOC is sued for injunctive relief under Section 504 and under Title II. The conduct alleged in this complaint independently violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of substantive due process. 82. As stated, Plaintiffs are qualified individuals with disabilities pursuant to the ADA and § 504, and Plaintiffs are qualified to received Defendants’ services. Plaintiffs have a condition, diabetes, which substantially limits at least one major life activity and/or has a history of a disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12102. Plaintiffs’ diabetes is a physical impairment to a major life activity because it is a physical condition affecting Plaintiffs’ the digestive, hemic and endocrine systems. In particular, Plaintiffs’ diabetes is an impairment that places a substantial limitation on his endocrine function. Plaintiffs’ diabetes substantially limits his major life activity of eating and caring for one’s self. Plaintiffs may not eat whatever they please because they risk severe bodily reactions if they disregard blood sugar readings or fail to adjust insulin property in coordination with meals.
24
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 24 of 33 PageID #: 24

83. Plaintiffs require reasonable accommodations to Defendant’s programs, services, and activities in order to manage their diabetes. These accommodations include providing blood sugar checks and insulin administration according to the schedule set by their physicians; regular mealtimes; the opportunity to exercise; and access to medical treatment and equipment. 84. Defendants have intentionally with deliberate indifference discriminated against Plaintiffs and have limited, segregated, excluded, treated, and classified Plaintiffs in a way which adversely affects their opportunities and denies them receipt of services and benefits of defendant public entities because of their disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 29 U.S.C. 794. 85. Defendants have administered and applied their policies, practices and procedures in a method that discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of disability and denied them the receipt of services and benefits of the defendants. 86. Plaintiffs sought reasonable accommodations, including access to blood sugar checks and insulin administration according to the schedules set by their doctors, and Defendants denied such requests. Accommodating Plaintiff would not have caused undue hardship to defendants.
25
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 25 of 33 PageID #: 25

87. As a direct and foreseeable result of these Defendants’ violations of Plaintiff’s federally protected rights, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer permanent physical injury. 88. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein and this suit for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief is their only means of securing adequate relief. 89. Plaintiffs are now suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from Defendants’ unlawful conduct as set forth herein unless enjoined by this Court. VII. Count II – Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs Resulting in
Physical Injury in Violation of the Eighth Amendment’s Prohibition of Cruel and Unusual Punishment and Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process. 90. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-89 above with the same force and effect as if fully set out in specific detail below. 91. Plaintiffs brings this Count against Defendant CCA. 92. Defendant CCA’s actions as described above were taken under color of state law, and were the result of an official policy or custom manifesting deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and/or a failure to train. 93. Defendant CCA has a policy or practice of minimizing staffing in order to reduce costs and maximize profits. This policy results in staffing levels that are insufficient to ensure that inmates have access to basic diabetes care in coordination
26
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 26 of 33 PageID #: 26

with regular mealtimes. As a result of Defendant CCA’s policy and practice of understaffing, corrections officers and medical staff are often unable to provide persons with insulin-dependent diabetes with access to basic diabetes care and equipment, including blood sugar checks and insulin administration coordinated with regular mealtimes. 94. In addition, Defendant CCA does not adequately train corrections officers regarding the medical needs of diabetic prisoners despite the obvious and demonstrated need for such training. The need for training is obvious because of the numerous grievances Defendant has received regarding denial of basic diabetes care as a result of guards believing that it is okay to, for instance, skip medications call for diabetics if they are too busy. As a result of Defendant CCA’s policy and practice of undertraining, corrections officers are not adequately trained in the need to provide persons with insulin-dependent diabetes with access to insulin and blood sugar checks coordinated with mealtimes according to the schedule set by medical staff. 95. Defendant CCA fails to train its corrections officers adequately in regard to the medical needs of insulin-dependent diabetic inmates despite knowing of the need for such training, and maintains its understaffing in deliberate indifference of the serious medical needs of its insulin-dependent diabetic inmates, despite knowing that persons with insulin diabetes are being deprived of essential care in its Trousdale Turner
27
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 27 of 33 PageID #: 27

facility. Defendant CCA has received numerous grievances regarding the denial of basic diabetes care at Trousdale Turner but has failed to take remedial action. 96. The failure to train occurred despite a pattern of constitutional violations or such a high likelihood of a constitutional violation that the need to train should have been obvious. 97. Defendant CCA’s actions were taken with deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs’ serious medical needs and with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ clearly established Constitutionally protected rights to adequate medical care. 98. These Defendants’ actions were intentional and/or resulted from a reckless disregard for the substantial risk posed by the Plaintiffs’ serious medical condition amounting to deliberate indifference that “shocks the conscience.” 99. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs were deprived of fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, including the right to adequate medical care for their serious medical needs while in the custody of the state. 100. The Defendants’ actions as described above violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of substantive due process.
28
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 28 of 33 PageID #: 28

101. As a direct and foreseeable result of these Defendants’ violations of Plaintiff’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer permanent physical injury. 102. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein and this suit for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief is their only means of securing adequate relief. 103. Plaintiffs are now suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from Defendants’ unlawful conduct as set forth herein unless enjoined by this Court. IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the named Plaintiffs and the class they represent respectfully pray that this Court assume jurisdiction of this action and grant them the following relief:
A. Declare that this suit is maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1) and (2).
B. Issue a declaratory judgment that the policies, practices, procedures, conditions and customs of Defendants are violative of the rights of Plaintiff as secured by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, Title II of the ADA, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
29
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 29 of 33 PageID #: 29

C. Grant Plaintiffs and the plaintiff class a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their agents, successors, employees, attorneys and those acting in concert with Defendants and at Defendants’ request from continuing to violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, Title II of the ADA, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act as set forth above.
D. Order Defendants TDOC and Parker, their agents, employees, officials, and all persons acting in concert with them under the color of state law to cease assigning persons with insulin-dependent diabetes to Trousdale Turner Correctional facility until such time as CCA effectively implements the permanent relief sought from it in this lawsuit;
E. Order Defendants TDOC and Parker, their agents, employees, officials, and all persons acting in concert with them under the color of state law to immediately transfer all persons with insulin-dependent diabetes presently incarcerated at Trousdale Turner Correctional facility to other facilities where reasonable accommodations, including access to basic diabetes care in coordination with regular mealtimes and a diabetic appropriate diet, and a full medical staff adequate to meet the needs of persons with insulin-dependent diabetes, are available and provided until such time as CCA effectively implements the permanent relief sought from it in this lawsuit;
30
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 30 of 33 PageID #: 30

F. Order Defendant CCA, its agents, employees, officials, and all persons acting in concert with it under the color of state law to implement a plan for immediately increasing, and in the future maintaining, staffing at numerical levels sufficient to ensure that inmates have access to basic diabetes care in coordination with regular mealtimes in accordance with the direction of medical staff, including hiring a nutritionist, increasing medical staffing, and increasing corrections officer staffing;
G. Order Defendant CCA, its agents, employees, officials, and all persons acting in concert with it under the color of state law to implement a plan for and implement training of medical staff, corrections staff, and others with inmate contact to ensure that insulin-dependent diabetic inmates have access to basic diabetes care;
H. Order Defendant CCA to take whatever steps may otherwise be necessary remedy the conditions constituting cruel and unusual punishment as detailed above;
I. Order Defendant TDOC to assign diabetic prisoners only to facilities where reasonable accommodations for their disabilities are available and provided in accordance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; and
31
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 31 of 33 PageID #: 31

J. Order Defendants TDOC and CCA to implement and allow independent monitoring by a monitor with appropriate medical training and expertise approved by plaintiffs sufficient to ensure that the medical needs of persons with insulin dependent diabetes at Trousdale Turner are being met and that persons with insulin-dependent diabetes are provided with reasonable accommodations as required by Title II, Section 504, and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, including access to basic diabetes care in coordination with regular mealtimes according to the directions of medical staff.
K. Award Plaintiffs the costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988 and applicable law;
L. Retain jurisdiction of this case until Defendants have fully complied with the orders of this Court, and there is a reasonable assurance that Defendants will continue to comply in the future absent continuing jurisdiction; and
M. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Joshua D. Wilson Joshua D. Wilson (TN Bar No. 031486) WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER, & GOLDFARB, LLC. 5214 Maryland Way, Suite 402 Brentwood, TN 37027
32
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 32 of 33 PageID #: 32

(615) 964-5215 jwilson@wigginschilds.com
Jon C. Goldfarb (to be admitted pro hac vice) L. William Smith (to be admitted pro hac vice) WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC. The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Telephone No.: (205) 314-0500 Facsimile No.: (205) 254-1500 jcg@wigginschilds.com lws@wigginschilds.com Counsel for Plaintiffs
PLEASE SERVE THE DEFENDANTS VIA CERTIFIED MAIL AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES:
CORECIVIC, FORMERLY d/b/a CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA 10 Burton Hills Blvd Nashville, TN 37215
THE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION c/o Herbert H. Slatery III Attorney General and Reporter Office of the Attorney General, State of Tennessee P.O. Box 20207 Nashville, TN 37202
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION COMMISSIONER TONY PARKER 320 Sixth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243
33
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 33 of 33 PageID #: 33

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

DOUGLAS DODSON, RICHARD

)

LITTLE, JASPER VICK, ET AL,

)

)

PLAINTIFFS,

) CIVIL ACTION NO.:

) 3:17-CV-00048

V.

)

)

CORECIVIC, FORMERLY d/b/a

)

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION

)

OF AMERICA and THE

)

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF

)

CORRECTION

)

)

and TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT

)

OF CORRECTION

)

COMMISSIONER TONY

)

PARKER

)

)

in his Official Capacity

)

)

DEFENDANTS.

)

)

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The plaintiffs and the proposed class are incarcerated in the Tennessee

Department of Corrections (“TDOC”) and housed at Trousdale Turner Correctional

Facility (“Trousdale Turner”) in Hartsville, TN, a private prison owned and operated

by CoreCivic, an entity formerly doing business as Corrections Corporation of

1

America (“CCA”). The plaintiffs and the proposed class are persons with insulindependent diabetes and require blood sugar monitoring and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes in order to survive. They are entirely dependent upon Defendants TDOC, Parker, and CCA to provide them with access to basic diabetes care. However, they have been, and continue to be, deprived of access to basic diabetes care while incarcerated at Trousdale Turner Correctional Facility. 2. Defendant TDOC and Defendant Parker, who is sued only in his official capacity as the head of the Department, have denied the Plaintiffs accommodation for their disability as required by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act by assigning them to incarceration at Trousdale Turner, where, due to understaffing and undertraining, reasonable accommodations for persons with insulin-dependent diabetes are either not available or are routinely denied. 3. Defendant CCA has subjected the plaintiffs and the plaintiff class to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by implementing policies and practices, including understaffing and undertraining, which manifest deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs’ serious medical needs, resulting in denial of access to basic diabetes care and serious physical injury to the
2

plaintiffs and the proposed class, constituting cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 4. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief to redress the deprivation under color of state law of rights secured by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983"), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134 (“Title II”), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq (“Section 504"). 5. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the class they seek to represent, seek an injunction preventing Defendants TDOC and Parker from assigning persons with insulin-dependent diabetes to Trousdale Turner and requiring that all persons with insulin-dependent diabetes presently incarcerated at Trousdale Turner be transferred to other diabetic compliant facilities until such time as CCA implements the permanent relief sought from it in this lawsuit, namely, the maintenance of appropriate staffing levels and training to ensure that inmates have access to basic diabetes care in coordination with regular mealtimes. Plaintiffs seek permanent injunctive relief requiring Defendant CCA to remedy the conditions constituting cruel and unusual punishment and requiring Defendant TDOC to assign diabetic prisoners only to facilities where reasonable accommodations for their disabilities are available and provided. Finally, Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring the
3

implementation of independent monitoring sufficient to ensure that the serious medical needs of persons with insulin dependent diabetes at Trousdale Turner are being met and that persons with insulin-dependent diabetes are provided reasonable accommodations, including access to basic diabetes care. II. JURISDICTION, VENUE AND ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES 6. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 USC §§ 1342, 2201 and 2202, 29 U.S.C. § 749a, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 12133. Venue is proper in the Middle District of Tennessee Nashville Division under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b). 7. Plaintiffs have complied with all requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) in that they have exhausted their administrative remedies and all appeals that were available. To the extent that administrative remedies remain unexhausted, Plaintiffs are entitled to a injunctive relief while they continue to exhaust administrative grievance procedures. III. PARTIES 8. Plaintiff Douglas Dodson has been an insulin-dependent Type 1 Diabetic since 2007. He is currently incarcerated at Trousdale Turner Correctional Center in Hartsville, TN.
4

9. Plaintiff Richard Little is an insulin-dependant Type II diabetic. He is currently incarcerated at Trousdale Turner Correctional Center in Hartsville, TN. 10. Plaintiff Jasper Vick has been insulin dependent since 2010. He is currently incarcerated at Trousdale Turner Correctional Center in Hartsville, TN. 11. Plaintiffs John Young and Edward Judd are inmates with insulin-dependent diabetes who have been, or may in the future be, housed at Trousdale Turner Correctional Center in Hartsville, TN. 12. The Defendant, CoreCivic, previously doing business as Corrections Corporation of America, (“CCA”), is a private Real Estate Investment Trust which owns and operates the Trousdale Turner Prison under contract with the State Department of Correction, housing prisoners sentenced to confinement in the Department of Correction. As such, CCA performs a public function traditionally reserved to the state and is therefore subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 13. The Defendant, Tennessee State Department of Correction (“TDOC”), is a recipient of federal funds through numerous federal grants and programs, including grants to states for workplace and community transition training for incarcerated individuals. It therefore constitutes a “program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance” as that phrase is used in Section 504.
5

14. The Defendant, Tennessee State Department of Correction (“TDOC”), is also a “public entity” providing services, programs, or activities as those terms are used by Title II of the ADA and is subject to suit for injunctive relief under that statute. Plaintiffs seek only injunctive relief, not damages, so TDOC is not immune from suit. In addition, Congress has validly abrogated TDOC’s sovereign immunity under Title II in regard to the allegations at issue in this lawsuit because TDOC’s conduct independently violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment Guarantee of substantive due process. 15. CCA is an “instrumentality” of the Tennessee Department of Corrections as that term is defined in Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (1)(B). This is so because, as stated above, the Department of Corrections, a state entity, is subject to Title II and obligated to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled individuals in its custody. CCA is the instrumentality through which such accommodations must be provided, if they are provided at all, to prisoners at CCA’s Trousdale Turner Correctional Center. Accordingly, CCA is subject to suit under Title II of the ADA. 16. Individual Defendant TDOC Commissioner Tony Parker (“Commissioner Parker”) is sued in his official capacity and as the head of a “public entity” providing services, programs, or activities as those terms are used by Title II and Section 504. IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
6

17. Plaintiffs seek class certification of all claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(1), and (b)(2). The Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole. 18. The class is defined as persons with insulin-dependent diabetes (Type 1 or insulin dependent Type 2) who are, who have been, or who in the future may become, housed at Trousdale Turner correctional facility. 19. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Upwards of sixty (60) persons with Type 1 or insulin-dependent Type 2 diabetes are currently housed at Trousdale Turner Correctional Facility. The Plaintiff class members are readily identifiable using records maintained in the regular course of business by Defendants TDOC and CCA. 20. There are questions of law and fact common to the proposed class. These common questions include whether Defendant CCA has a policy or practice of maintaining staffing levels insufficient to ensure that inmates have access to basic diabetes care in coordination with regular mealtimes. 21. Another common question is whether Defendant CCA fails to train its corrections officers adequately in regard to the medical needs of insulin-dependent diabetic inmates in deliberate indifference to the obvious need for such training, and
7

whether it maintains its understaffing and lack of training in deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of its insulin-dependent diabetic inmates. 22. Another common question is whether, as a result of Defendant CCA’s policy and practice of understaffing and undertraining, corrections officers and medical staff are unable to provide class members with access to basic diabetes care, including blood sugar checks and insulin administration, in coordination with regular mealtimes according to the schedule set by medical staff and displayed on the card the inmate carries. 23. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of those of the proposed class, as their claims arise from the same policies, practices, acts, and omissions as those of the Plaintiff class. The named Plaintiffs’ claims are based on the same theory as the claims of the class. Each named Plaintiff has been injured as a result of Defendants’ actions addressed in this lawsuit in the same way as the other members of the proposed class. 24. The named representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The named Plaintiffs do not have any interests antagonistic to the interests of the class. The named plaintiffs, on behalf of the proposed class, seek to enjoin the unlawful acts and omissions of Defendants. Finally, the named Plaintiffs are
8

represented by counsel experienced in civil rights litigation, prisoners’ rights litigation, and complex class action litigation. 25. This action is maintainable as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) because the number of current members of the proposed class is in excess of sixty (60), and prosecution of separate actions by individuals seeking the same injunctive relief would create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications, with the risk of establishing incompatible standards for the party opposing the class. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members could result in adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. 26. This action is also maintainable as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole, as Plaintiffs seek an injunction to prevent Defendant TDOC from assigning persons with diabetes to Trousdale Turner, and assuring that all persons with insulin-dependent diabetes presently assigned to Trousdale Turner are transferred to other facilities, until such time as CCA implements the permanent relief sought from it in this lawsuit, namely, the maintenance of appropriate staffing levels and training to ensure that inmates have access to basic diabetes care in
9

coordination with regular mealtimes in accordance with the directions of medical staff. 27. Certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) is further appropriate because Plaintiffs seek permanent injunctive relief requiring Defendant CCA to remedy the conditions constituting cruel and unusual punishment and requiring Defendant TDOC to assign diabetic prisoners only to facilities where reasonable accommodations for their disabilities are provided in accordance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 28. Finally, certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) is appropriate because Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring the implementation of independent monitoring sufficient to ensure that the medical needs of persons with insulindependent diabetes at Trousdale Turner are being met and that persons with insulindependent diabetes are provided with reasonable accommodations including access to basic diabetes care in coordination with regular mealtimes in accordance with the directions of medical staff as required by Title II, Section 504, and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 29. The injuries of each named Plaintiff and the Plaintiff class are actual, imminent, and ongoing, as they continue to be denied basic diabetes care. To the extent any named representative is transferred to another facility pursuant to the relief requested
10

in this lawsuit or for other reasons, that plaintiff will continue to have standing and will continue to be an adequate class representative in the absence of the permanent relief this lawsuit seeks. Because Tennessee law dictates that “[a]ny inmate sentenced to confinement in the department shall be legally eligible to be incarcerated in a facility in which a prison contractor is providing correctional services,” Tenn. Code § 41-24-103(c), each named Plaintiff will continue to face a real and immediate threat of incarceration at Trousdale Turner and of future injury and will continue to have standing to pursue injunctive relief. V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. Trousdale Turner Correctional Facility and the Corrections Corporation of America.
30. Trousdale Turner Correctional Facility (“Trousdale Turner”) opened in January, 2016 as a newly constructed facility located in Hartsville, Tennessee. 31. Trousdale Turner is owned and operated by CoreCivic, a company formerly doing business as Corrections Corporation of America (“CCA”), a for-profit prison owner and operator of private prisons nationwide, under a contract with the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”). 32. Trousdale Turner is a medium security facility with a capacity of 2552 male inmates.
11

33. CCA is a publicly traded real estate investment trust. CCA manages or owns 66 correctional and detention facilities with a capacity of approximately 90,000 beds in 19 states and the District of Columbia. In 2015, CCA reported a total revenue of $1.79 billion. 34. In Tennessee, in addition to the Trousdale Turner facility, CCA owns and operates the Whiteville Correctional Facility. Pursuant to contractual agreements, CCA manages the South Central Correctional Center, the Metro-Davidson County Detention Facility and the Hardeman County Correctional Facility. 35. In conjunction with federal and local governments, CCA also owns and operates the West Tennessee Detention Facility in Mason, Tennessee, and manages the Silverdale Detention Facilities in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which house federal and local inmate and detainee populations.
B. CCA’s Policy and Practice of Understaffing and Undertraining. 36. In order to maximize profits, CCA has a policy and practice of reducing staffing, sometimes even below the levels called for in its contracts with entities such as the Tennessee Department of Corrections. 37. Since its opening, Trousdale Turner has been understaffed, and staffing has been insufficient to ensure safe and efficient inmate movement within the facility. For instance, as a result of understaffing of corrections officers, inmates are not allowed
12

to use the exercise yard or to visit the “chow hall” for meals because CCA lacks sufficient numbers of corrections officers and other correctional staff to safely and efficiently move inmates in large groups according to a regular schedule. 38. Similarly, the medical clinic at the prison is understaffed. Although the facility has a capacity of 2552 inmates, currently there is no medical doctor on staff, as the physician previously assigned to the prison resigned and has not been replaced. The current medical staff consists of four (4) nurses and two (2) nurse practitioner. 39. Trousdale Turner does not employ a nutritionist. 40. This understaffing is the result of CCA’s policy and practice of minimizing staffing in order to cut costs and maximize profits. 41. As a result of CAA’s policy and practice of understaffing, Defendant CCA is often unable to provide persons with insulin-dependent diabetes with access to basic diabetes care, including blood sugar checks and insulin administration coordinated with regular mealtimes and a diabetic appropriate diet. 42. In addition, Trousale Turner’s corrections staff consists largely of corrections officers with no previous experience in corrections. Defendant CCA does not adequately train corrections officers regarding the need to provide diabetic prisoners with access to basic diabetes care, including blood sugar checks and insulin
13

administration coordinated with regular mealtimes, despite the obvious and repeatedly demonstrated need for such training. 43. As a result of Defendant’s policy and practice of understaffing and undertraining, corrections officers are not adequately trained in the need to provide persons with insulin-dependent diabetes with access to basic diabetes care, including blood sugar checks and insulin administration coordinated with regular mealtimes. 44. CCA fails to train its corrections officers adequately in the need to provide persons with insulin-dependent diabetes with access to basic diabetes care, including blood sugar checks and insulin administration coordinated with regular mealtimes, despite knowing of the need for such training, and maintains its understaffing in deliberate indifference of the serious medical needs of its insulin-dependent diabetic inmates.
C. Diabetes Mellitus. 45. Trousdale Turner facility houses upwards of sixty prisoners who have been diagnosed with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes and who require insulin injections. 46. In type 1 diabetes, the pancreas stops making insulin or makes only a tiny amount. Type 1 develops when the body’s immune system destroys beta cells in the pancreas, the only cells in the body that make insulin. Thus, the body is no longer
14

able to produce significant amounts of insulin, and a person with type 1 diabetes must receive insulin from an outside source in order to survive. 47. Insulin is typically administered through injections or use of an insulin pump, a small mechanical device that administers insulin through a tube into a permanent injection site. Failure to administer insulin in a timely manner to a person with type 1 diabetes can lead to diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), a potentially fatal condition caused by severely elevated blood glucose levels. Similarly, failure to appropriately monitor blood sugar levels, or delayed access to food after insulin is administered, can lead to a drastic drop in blood sugar levels resulting in the diabetic losing consciousness, going into a coma or dying. 48. Type 2 diabetes is by far the most common type of diabetes—approximately 95% of people with diabetes have type 2 diabetes. In type 2 diabetes, the body retains the ability to make insulin, but the amount of insulin it does make does not adequately serve the body’s needs. It is generally believed that in people with type 2 diabetes the body’s cells cannot recognize insulin or use it as effectively as in people without diabetes (a condition known as insulin resistance). Generally over time the strain on the pancreas will decrease its ability to produce insulin and will cause blood glucose levels to rise. Some people with type 2, particularly in the early stages of the disease, can control their diabetes solely through diet and exercise. Treatment may then
15

progress to use of oral medications. Finally, as the disease progresses, some people with type 2 diabetes may receive insulin administrations as frequently as a person with type 1 diabetes. However, people with type 2 diabetes, even those who use insulin, have a much lower chance of experiencing deadly diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) than a person with type 1 diabetes. 49. Insulin and oral medications which lower blood glucose levels are used to treat diabetes. All types of insulin and some oral medications can lower blood glucose levels too much, leading to a potentially dangerous condition known as hypoglycemia (low blood glucose levels). The medical definition of hypoglycemia is a blood sugar reading of 70 mg/dL or below. Symptoms of mild to moderate hypoglycemia include tremors, sweating, lightheadedness, irritability, confusion, and drowsiness. 50. Hypoglycemia usually can be treated easily and effectively by consuming a ready source of glucose such as fruit juice. If it is not treated promptly, however, hypoglycemia can become severe and potentially life-threatening. Symptoms of severe hypoglycemia include inability to swallow, convulsions or unconsciousness. 51. All people with type 1 diabetes, and some people with type 2 (those who are taking insulin or oral medications which lower blood glucose levels) will experience hypoglycemia.
16

52. Hyperglycemia (high blood glucose) can cause a host of symptoms and can also eventually lead to more severe consequences. 53. The symptoms of mild to moderate hyperglycemia include hunger, thirst and dehydration, headache, nausea, fatigue, blurry vision, frequent urination, and itchy and dry skin. Individuals with hyperglycemia can also have fruity smelling breath, which can be mistaken for the smell of alcohol. In addition to these short-term consequences of acute hyperglycemia, chronic high blood glucose levels can cause a number of very serious long-term complications, such as nerve damage, heart disease, blindness, kidney failure, stroke, and death. Thus, in situations where a person is unable to take medication to address high blood glucose for an extended period of time, their chances of experiencing these health complications rises. 54. If a person who needs insulin is not able to take that medication for a period ranging from several hours to several days, he or she can experience diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Type 1 diabetes has a greatly increased risk of DKA as compared to type 2 diabetes. DKA is a life-threatening and often deadly consequence of a shortage of insulin. The body begins to burn fatty acids for energy since it cannot use the glucose without insulin. The byproduct of breaking down fatty acids are ketone bodies, which render the blood acidic. Diabetic ketoacidosis, if left untreated,
17

will eventually result in death. Diabetic ketoacidosis requires immediate hospitalization, often in the intensive care unit.
D. Diabetic Care at Trousdale Turner Correctional Facility. 55. At Trousdale Turner, persons with insulin-dependent diabetes are provided with ID cards identifying them to corrections officers and medical staff as diabetics. 56. Due to underfunding and understaffing, Trousdale Turner does not have a sufficient medical staff. As stated above, the current staff consists of four (4) nurses, two (2) nurse practitioners, and currently no physician. 57. The medical staff has assigned each insulin dependent diabetic inmate a schedule of times when the inmate is supposed to receive insulin and/or blood sugar checks. This schedule of times is printed on a card that the inmate carries with him. 58. The schedule of blood sugar checks and insulin administration set by the medical staff is intended to be coordinated with regular mealtimes, as persons with insulin-dependent diabetes must check blood sugar and take fast-acting insulin before eating. 59. As stated above, Trousdale Turner employs no nutritionist due to its policies of understaffing and underfunding. This means that meals are unpredictable in timing and content for persons with insulin-dependent diabetes, contrary to medical directions.
18

60. Further, as a result of Defendant’s policy of understaffing and undertraining, mealtimes have been irregular at Trousdale Turner since the facility opened in 2016, and are often not timed by corrections staff to allow coordination with access to basic diabetes care, including blood sugar checks and insulin administration. 61. This leads to insulin-dependent being forced to eat diabetic inappropriate meals without first being allowed to check blood sugar or take insulin, or being required to forgo blood sugar checks or insulin entirely. 62. Tazarius Leach, an inmate with insulin-dependent diabetes, states, “I have been at Trousdale Prison since Jan. 7th. I been having problems getting Insulin. Some days I don’t receive insulin at all or on time.” Plaintiff Richard little states that “With all the problems that go by on a daily basis and as a pill and insulin diabetic I have been denied my diabetes shot and mental health medications so many times that I stopped counting.” Plaintiff Douglas Dodson states, “Well to start with it was a few days in February that all the diabetics went without any insulin...” 63. CCA has no dietician on staff at Trousdale Turner. As a result, diabetic inmates are denied access to diabetic appropriate nutrition, contrary to the direction of medical staff.
19

64. The understaffing and underfunding of the medical department also results in inmates being denied access to basic diabetes care because the medical department lacks staff or equipment to provide such care when needed. 65. Inmates have been on lockdown numerous times since the opening of the Trousdale Turner facility in January, 2016, sometimes being required to remain in their cells for three weeks or more without access to showers or exercise facilities. 66. Lockdowns at Trousdale Turner have occurred not just for disciplinary purposes, but also because, as a result of CCA’s policy and practice of understaffing, the facility lacks adequate staffing to enable inmate movement within the facility. 67. During periods of lockdown or at other times of restricted inmate movement, inmates must rely on corrections staff to provide access to medical staff for diabetic care. During lockdowns or at other times of restricted movement, inmates must be “called” by corrections officers or medical staff for basic diabetes care, including blood sugar checks and insulin administration. 68. During periods of lockdown, or because it is frequently not possible due to understaffing for corrections officers to safely move inmates in large numbers, inmates are given meals on trays in their cells rather than in the “chow hall” or cafeteria. Meals are provided at irregular and often unpredictable times and are often not diabetic appropriate despite medical directions for a diabetic appropriate diet.
20

69. At such times, inmates are frequently forced to eat their meals and only then, sometimes two to three hours after eating, allowed to go for blood sugar checks or insulin injections. This occurred, for instance, between August 29, 2016 and September 18, 2016 and has recurred several times, with a high likelihood of recurrence in the future. Such unconscionable delay in receiving basic diabetes care is the functional equivalent of receiving no care at all and is the direct result of Defendant CCA’s policy or practice of understaffing and undertraining. 70. Dodson states that as of September, 2016, “We have been on ... facility lock down for the biggest part of September and just about everyday for the lunch, 12:00 and evening at 4:30 acute check we have been forced to eat our meals and wait 2 to 3 hours and then go have our blood sugars checked...” Dodson further states, “on 913-2016 and 9-14-2016 we were not even called for the 4:30 pm evening diabetic call, so ... no diabetic received any insulin whatsoever for these evening diabetic calls.” 71. According to Dodson, “from 8-29-2016 to 9-18-2016 while on a facility lockdown all diabetics were forced to eat our evening meals without being able to get our blood sugar checked and receiving our insulin, it would be 2 or 3 hours before we were called to get it if we even got called.”
21

72. Sometimes, diabetic call does not occur due to understaffing or as a result of undertraining. On such occasions inmates are not allowed to check blood sugar or receive insulin in coordination with meals and are completely denied access to basic diabetes care as a result of Defendant’s policy of understaffing or failure to train. 73. At such times, as a result of deliberate indifference and the policies of understaffing and undertraining, Defendant CCA frequently and routinely denies inmates access to basic diabetes care including blood sugar checks and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes. 74. As a result of being denied basic diabetes care, the plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class have suffered, and continue to suffer, ongoing physical injuries. 75. Plaintiff Douglas Dodson has experienced numerous diabetes-related complications as a result of being denied access to basic diabetes care, including blood sugar checks and insulin. These complications include consistently high blood sugar, DKA, diabetic neuropathy, and other serious medical complications, including life threatening fluctuations in blood sugar levels, while incarcerated at Trousdale Turner. Dodson has filed grievances but has received no responses. 76. Tazarius Leach has experienced numerous diabetes-related complications as a result of being denied access to basic diabetes care, including blood sugar checks
22

and insulin. These complications include consistently high blood sugar, DKA, degraded vision, and diabetic neuropathy, and other serious diabetes complications. 77. Plaintiff Richard Little has experienced numerous diabetes-related complications as a result of being denied access to basic diabetes care, including blood sugar checks and insulin. These complications include consistently high blood sugar, DKA, degraded vision, and diabetic neuropathy, and other serious diabetes complications. 78. Plaintiff Jasper Vick has experienced numerous diabetes-related complications as a result of being denied access to basic diabetes care, including blood sugar checks and insulin. These complications include, degraded vision, and diabetic neuropathy, and other serious diabetes complications. VI. Count I – Failure to Accommodate and Discrimination on the Basis of
Disability Resulting in Physical Injury under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 79. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-79 above with the same force and effect as if fully set out in specific detail below. 80. Plaintiffs bring this Count against Defendant CCA (Title II) and Defendant DOC (Section 504). Defendant CCA is a “instrumentality” of the Tennessee Department of Corrections as that term is defined in Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (1)(B). The Tennessee Department of Correction is a “program or activity
23

receiving Federal financial assistance” as that phrase is used in Section 504. It is also a “public entity” providing services, programs, or activities as those terms are used by Title II of the ADA and is subject to suit under that statute. 81. Defendant CCA is sued for injunctive relief under Title II. Defendant TDOC is sued for injunctive relief under Section 504 and under Title II. The conduct alleged in this complaint independently violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of substantive due process. 82. As stated, Plaintiffs are qualified individuals with disabilities pursuant to the ADA and § 504, and Plaintiffs are qualified to received Defendants’ services. Plaintiffs have a condition, diabetes, which substantially limits at least one major life activity and/or has a history of a disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12102. Plaintiffs’ diabetes is a physical impairment to a major life activity because it is a physical condition affecting Plaintiffs’ the digestive, hemic and endocrine systems. In particular, Plaintiffs’ diabetes is an impairment that places a substantial limitation on his endocrine function. Plaintiffs’ diabetes substantially limits his major life activity of eating and caring for one’s self. Plaintiffs may not eat whatever they please because they risk severe bodily reactions if they disregard blood sugar readings or fail to adjust insulin property in coordination with meals.
24

83. Plaintiffs require reasonable accommodations to Defendant’s programs, services, and activities in order to manage their diabetes. These accommodations include providing blood sugar checks and insulin administration according to the schedule set by their physicians; regular mealtimes; the opportunity to exercise; and access to medical treatment and equipment. 84. Defendants have intentionally with deliberate indifference discriminated against Plaintiffs and have limited, segregated, excluded, treated, and classified Plaintiffs in a way which adversely affects their opportunities and denies them receipt of services and benefits of defendant public entities because of their disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 29 U.S.C. 794. 85. Defendants have administered and applied their policies, practices and procedures in a method that discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of disability and denied them the receipt of services and benefits of the defendants. 86. Plaintiffs sought reasonable accommodations, including access to blood sugar checks and insulin administration according to the schedules set by their doctors, and Defendants denied such requests. Accommodating Plaintiff would not have caused undue hardship to defendants.
25

87. As a direct and foreseeable result of these Defendants’ violations of Plaintiff’s federally protected rights, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer permanent physical injury. 88. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein and this suit for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief is their only means of securing adequate relief. 89. Plaintiffs are now suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from Defendants’ unlawful conduct as set forth herein unless enjoined by this Court. VII. Count II – Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs Resulting in
Physical Injury in Violation of the Eighth Amendment’s Prohibition of Cruel and Unusual Punishment and Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process. 90. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-90 above with the same force and effect as if fully set out in specific detail below. 91. Plaintiffs brings this Count against Defendant CCA. 92. Defendant CCA’s actions as described above were taken under color of state law, and were the result of an official policy or custom manifesting deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and/or a failure to train. 93. Defendant CCA has a policy or practice of minimizing staffing in order to reduce costs and maximize profits. This policy results in staffing levels that are insufficient to ensure that inmates have access to basic diabetes care in coordination
26

with regular mealtimes. As a result of Defendant CCA’s policy and practice of understaffing, corrections officers and medical staff are often unable to provide persons with insulin-dependent diabetes with access to basic diabetes care and equipment, including blood sugar checks and insulin administration coordinated with regular mealtimes. 94. In addition, Defendant CCA does not adequately train corrections officers regarding the medical needs of diabetic prisoners despite the obvious and demonstrated need for such training. The need for training is obvious because of the numerous grievances Defendant has received regarding denial of basic diabetes care as a result of guards believing that it is okay to, for instance, skip medications call for diabetics if they are too busy. As a result of Defendant CCA’s policy and practice of undertraining, corrections officers are not adequately trained in the need to provide persons with insulin-dependent diabetes with access to insulin and blood sugar checks coordinated with mealtimes according to the schedule set by medical staff. 95. Defendant CCA fails to train its corrections officers adequately in regard to the medical needs of insulin-dependent diabetic inmates despite knowing of the need for such training, and maintains its understaffing in deliberate indifference of the serious medical needs of its insulin-dependent diabetic inmates, despite knowing that persons with insulin diabetes are being deprived of essential care in its Trousdale Turner
27

facility. Defendant CCA has received numerous grievances regarding the denial of basic diabetes care at Trousdale Turner but has failed to take remedial action. 96. The failure to train occurred despite a pattern of constitutional violations or such a high likelihood of a constitutional violation that the need to train should have been obvious. 97. Defendant CCA’s actions were taken with deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs’ serious medical needs and with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ clearly established Constitutionally protected rights to adequate medical care. 98. These Defendants’ actions were intentional and/or resulted from a reckless disregard for the substantial risk posed by the Plaintiffs’ serious medical condition amounting to deliberate indifference that “shocks the conscience.” 99. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs were deprived of fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, including the right to adequate medical care for their serious medical needs while in the custody of the state. 100. The Defendants’ actions as described above violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of substantive due process.
28

101. As a direct and foreseeable result of these Defendants’ violations of Plaintiff’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer permanent physical injury. 102. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein and this suit for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief is their only means of securing adequate relief. 103. Plaintiffs are now suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from Defendants’ unlawful conduct as set forth herein unless enjoined by this Court. IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the named Plaintiffs and the class they represent respectfully pray that this Court assume jurisdiction of this action and grant them the following relief:
A. Declare that this suit is maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1) and (2).
B. Issue a declaratory judgment that the policies, practices, procedures, conditions and customs of Defendants are violative of the rights of Plaintiff as secured by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, Title II of the ADA, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
29

C. Grant Plaintiffs and the plaintiff class a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their agents, successors, employees, attorneys and those acting in concert with Defendants and at Defendants’ request from continuing to violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, Title II of the ADA, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act as set forth above.
D. Order Defendants TDOC and Parker, their agents, employees, officials, and all persons acting in concert with them under the color of state law to cease assigning persons with insulin-dependent diabetes to Trousdale Turner Correctional facility until such time as CCA effectively implements the permanent relief sought from it in this lawsuit;
E. Order Defendants TDOC and Parker, their agents, employees, officials, and all persons acting in concert with them under the color of state law to immediately transfer all persons with insulin-dependent diabetes presently incarcerated at Trousdale Turner Correctional facility to other facilities where reasonable accommodations, including access to basic diabetes care in coordination with regular mealtimes and a diabetic appropriate diet, and a full medical staff adequate to meet the needs of persons with insulin-dependent diabetes, are available and provided until such time as CCA effectively implements the permanent relief sought from it in this lawsuit;
30

F. Order Defendant CCA, its agents, employees, officials, and all persons acting in concert with it under the color of state law to implement a plan for immediately increasing, and in the future maintaining, staffing at numerical levels sufficient to ensure that inmates have access to basic diabetes care in coordination with regular mealtimes in accordance with the direction of medical staff, including hiring a nutritionist, increasing medical staffing, and increasing corrections officer staffing;
G. Order Defendant CCA, its agents, employees, officials, and all persons acting in concert with it under the color of state law to implement a plan for and implement training of medical staff, corrections staff, and others with inmate contact to ensure that insulin-dependent diabetic inmates have access to basic diabetes care;
H. Order Defendant CCA to take whatever steps may otherwise be necessary remedy the conditions constituting cruel and unusual punishment as detailed above;
I. Order Defendant TDOC to assign diabetic prisoners only to facilities where reasonable accommodations for their disabilities are available and provided in accordance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; and
31

J. Order Defendants TDOC and CCA to implement and allow independent monitoring by a monitor with appropriate medical training and expertise approved by plaintiffs sufficient to ensure that the medical needs of persons with insulin dependent diabetes at Trousdale Turner are being met and that persons with insulin-dependent diabetes are provided with reasonable accommodations as required by Title II, Section 504, and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, including access to basic diabetes care in coordination with regular mealtimes according to the directions of medical staff.
K. Award Plaintiffs the costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988 and applicable law;
L. Retain jurisdiction of this case until Defendants have fully complied with the orders of this Court, and there is a reasonable assurance that Defendants will continue to comply in the future absent continuing jurisdiction; and
M. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Joshua D. Wilson Joshua D. Wilson (TN Bar No. 031486) WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER, & GOLDFARB, LLC. 5214 Maryland Way, Suite 402 Brentwood, TN 37027
32

(615) 964-5215 jwilson@wigginschilds.com
Jon C. Goldfarb (to be admitted pro hac vice) L. William Smith (to be admitted pro hac vice) WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC. The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Telephone No.: (205) 314-0500 Facsimile No.: (205) 254-1500 jcg@wigginschilds.com lws@wigginschilds.com Counsel for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 14th day of September, 2017, I filed this document with the Clerk of the Court, causing electronic notice to be sent to the following attorneys of record:
Erin Palmer Polly Joseph F. Welborn, III Paige M. Ayres Butler Snow LLP (Nashville) The Pinnacle at Symphony Place 150 Third Avenue South, Suite 1600 Nashville, TN 37201 (615) 651-6700 Erin.Polly@butlersnow.com Joe.Welborn@butlersnow.com Paige.Nutini@butlersnow.com
Kyle V. Miller Butler Snow LLP (Ridgeland, MS) P O Box 6010 1020 Highland Colony Parkway
33

Suite 1400 Ridgeland, MS 39158-6010 (601) 948-5711 Fax: (601) 985-4500 kyle.miller@butlersnow.com
Jennifer L. Brenner Tennessee Attorney General's Office P O Box 20207 Nashville, TN 37202 (615) 532-2500 jennifer.brenner@ag.tn.gov
Torrey Samson Tennessee Attorney General's Office P O Box 20207 Nashville, TN 37202-0207 (615) 741-6820 Fax: (615) 532-2541 torrey.samson@ag.tn.gov

/s/ L. William Smith Of Counsel

34

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

DOUGLAS DODSON and JASPER VICK
Plaintiffs,
v.
CORECIVIC, INC., THE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, and COMMISSIONER TONY PARKER,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action Number 3:17-CV-00048

)

District Judge Eli Richardson

)

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey S. Frensley

)

Jury Demand

)

)

)

)

JUDGMENT

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54 and 58, and pursuant to the agreement of the parties as evidenced by the signature of their counsel below, JUDGMENT is hereby entered against Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. (“CoreCivic”) in favor of Plaintiffs Douglas Dodson and Jasper Vick as representatives of the class that the Court certified – “All inmates with Type I and insulindependent Type II diabetes who are or may become housed at [the] Trousdale Turner Correctional [Center] and who require access to blood sugar checks and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes” (Docket Entry 142) – as follows:
1. CoreCivic shall continue to provide Type I and insulin-dependent Type II diabetic inmates at the Trousdale Turner Correctional Center (collectively, “insulin-dependent inmates”) access to blood sugar checks and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes.
2. CoreCivic serves three meals a day at the Trousdale Turner Correctional Center. Presently, CoreCivic calls insulin-dependent inmates out of their housing units approximately

Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 172 Filed 07/25/19 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 2675

thirty minutes before each meal. The insulin-dependent inmates only respond to the calls that are made before the meals for which they are scheduled to receive blood sugar checks and insulin administration. These insulin-dependent inmates are released to go to the gymnasium, where medical providers are stationed to provide them blood sugar checks and insulin administration. After the blood sugar checks and insulin administration, the insulin-dependent inmates are provided their meals in the gymnasium. This allows the insulin-dependent inmates to receive blood sugar checks and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes. Upon completion of their meals, the insulin-dependent inmates return to their housing units. During periods of restricted movement and for those insulin-dependent inmates who are located in restrictive housing, medical providers go to the housing units of those inmates to provide blood sugar checks and insulin administration in advance of regular mealtimes. If an insulin-dependent inmate refuses a blood sugar check or insulin administration, medical providers attempt to obtain a signature from that insulin-dependent inmate that documents the refusal of medical treatment.
3. CoreCivic shall continue with the protocol set forth in paragraph 2 above at the Trousdale Turner Correctional Center unless CoreCivic determines that a different protocol is appropriate to provide insulin-dependent inmates blood sugar checks and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes.
4. CoreCivic shall add the following language to its written policies at the Trousdale Turner Correctional Center: “Type I and insulin-dependent Type II diabetic inmates shall have access to blood sugar checks and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes.”
5. CoreCivic shall add the following language to its training materials at the Trousdale Turner Correctional Center: “Type I and insulin-dependent Type II diabetic inmates shall have access to blood sugar checks and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes.
2 Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 172 Filed 07/25/19 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 2676

The importance to inmate heath of compliance with this policy will be explained during training, including the serious health consequences that can result from failure to have access to insulin in coordination with regular mealtimes.”
6. This Judgment shall remain effective for two (2) years from the date of entry. 7. Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Judgment, CoreCivic shall pay to counsel for Plaintiffs the total sum of $99,950.00, in full satisfaction of any and all claims that counsel for Plaintiffs could have sought for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses in this matter under any theory of recovery, including but not limited to any such claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). 8. This Judgment is in full satisfaction of any and all claims for injunctive relief regarding access to blood sugar checks and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes that were asserted or that could have been asserted against CoreCivic by Plaintiffs in this action. Except for the terms of this Judgment, any and all claims for injunctive relief regarding access to blood sugar checks and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes that Plaintiffs asserted or could have asserted against CoreCivic, its past, present, and future agents, assigns, attorneys, directors, employees, independent contractors, insurers, officers, partners, predecessors, related professional associations or corporations, representatives, servants, successors in interest, and all other corporations, firms, or persons with whom any of the former have been, are now, or may hereinafter be affiliated shall be and are hereby released and forever barred. 9. All claims in this matter against Defendants The Tennessee Department of Corrections and Commissioner Tony Parker have been dismissed with prejudice by separate Order.
3 Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 172 Filed 07/25/19 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 2677

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 25, 2019

___________________________________________ ELI RICHARDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

AGREED:
/s/ Jon C. Goldfarb Jon C. Goldfarb (admitted pro hac vice) Rachel McGinley (admitted pro hac vice) L. William Smith (admitted pro hac vice) Wiggins, Childs, Pantazis, Fisher & Goldfarb, LLC The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Birmingham, Alabama 35203 (205) 314-0500
Charles P. Yezbak, III (#18965) Yezbak Law Offices 2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200 Nashville, Tennessee 37215 (615) 250-2000
Counsel for Plaintiffs Douglas Dodson and Jasper Vick
/s/ Joseph F. Welborn, III Joseph F. Welborn, III (#15076) Erin Palmer Polly (#22221) Butler Snow LLP The Pinnacle at Symphony Place 150 Third Avenue, South Nashville, Tennessee 37201 (615) 651-6700
Kyle V. Miller (admitted pro hac vice) Butler Snow LLP Renaissance at Colony Park 1020 Highland Colony Parkway, Suite 1400 P.O. Box 6010 Ridgeland, Mississippi 39158 (601) 948-5711

4 Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 172 Filed 07/25/19 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 2678

Counsel for Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. /s/ Jennifer L. Brenner Jennifer L. Brenner (#22692) Civil Rights & Claims Division Office of the Attorney General & Reporter P.O. Box 20207 Nashville, Tennessee 37202 (615) 532-2500 Counsel for The Tennessee Department of Correction and Commissioner Tony Parker
5 Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 172 Filed 07/25/19 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 2679

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

DOUGLAS DODSON, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. CORECIVIC, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

NO. 3:17-cv-00048

)

)

JUDGE CAMPBELL

)

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

)

FRENSLEY

MEMORANDUM Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Doc. No. 68).
BACKGROUND Plaintiffs and potential class members are inmates who are, or have been, incarcerated at Trousdale Turner Correctional Facility (“Trousdale”), a private prison owned and operated by Defendant CoreCivic (“CCA”), formerly Corrections Corporation of America. Plaintiffs and the proposed class are persons with insulin-dependent diabetes who require blood sugar monitoring and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have deprived, and continue to deprive, Plaintiffs of access to this basic diabetes care at Trousdale. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Tennessee Department of Corrections (“TDOC”), Parker (as Commissioner), and CCA have denied Plaintiffs and potential class members accommodations for their disabilities as required by the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by assigning them to incarceration at Trousdale. Plaintiffs also aver that CCA has subjected Plaintiffs and potential class members to cruel and

Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 142 Filed 10/03/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 2543

unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, through policies and practices that manifest deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ serious medical needs, specifically access to basic diabetes care - blood sugar monitoring and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes. Plaintiffs contend that these actions by all Defendants have caused them serious injury.
Plaintiffs’ purported class action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief only. Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of all persons with insulin-dependent diabetes who are, have been, or may become housed at Trousdale. Doc. No. 68 at 16. Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(1) or (b)(2).
CLASS CERTIFICATION In order to certify a class, the Court must be satisfied that Plaintiff has met the requirements of both Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 23(a) establishes four requirements for class certification: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of those of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). A class action will be certified only if, after rigorous analysis, the Court is satisfied that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been met and that the action falls within one of the categories under Rule 23(b). Abriq v. Metropolitan Gov’t. of Nashville/Davidson County, 2018 WL 2100328 (M.D. Tenn. May 7, 2018); Castillo v. Envoy Corp., 206 F.R.D. 464, 467-68 (M.D. Tenn. 2002). The decision whether to certify a class, committed to the sound discretion of the
2
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 142 Filed 10/03/18 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 2544

district judge, turns on the particular facts and circumstances of each individual case. Graham v. Parker, 2017 WL 1737871 at * 2 (M.D. Tenn. May 4, 2017); Ballan v. Upjohn Co., 159 F.R.D. 473, 479 (W.D. Mich. 1994). The party seeking class certification bears the burden of showing that the requirements for class certification are met. Bridging Communities Inc. v. Top Flite Financial Inc., 843 F.3d 1119, 1124 (6th Cir. 2016); Mays v. Tenn. Valley Authority, 274 F.R.D. 614, 618 (E.D. Tenn. 2011). Numerosity
Rule 23 requires that the potential class be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. While there is no strict numerical test, “substantial” numbers usually satisfy the numerosity requirement. In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., 314 F.R.D. 226, 237 (N.D. Ohio 2014); Daffin v. Ford Motor Co., 458 F.3d 549, 552 (6th Cir. 2006). Whether joinder is impracticable depends on the particular circumstances of each case. Krieger v. Gast, 197 F.R.D. 310, 314 (W.D. Mich. 2000). Some of the factors the Court may consider are class size, ease of identification of members of the proposed class, geographic distribution of class members, and the ability of the class members to pursue individual actions. Id.
Plaintiffs assert that the number of inmates with insulin-dependent diabetes at Trousdale easily exceeds forty at any one time. Plaintiffs allege that joinder is impracticable because of Defendants’ transfers of inmates to other facilities and because of the requirement that each inmate file and exhaust his or her grievances. Defendants argue that the affected inmates can bring their own individualized actions, each inmate’s case requires an individual evaluation, and the class definition is not sufficiently limited.
3
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 142 Filed 10/03/18 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 2545

The Court finds that the potential class size weighs in favor of class certification. Because of Defendants’ own records (including medical records of inmates), identification of inmates who are, or have been, incarcerated at Trousdale and have insulin-dependent diabetes should not be a difficult task. Although there is no evidence before the Court as to the geographic distribution of the potential class members, if they are still under the control of the Tennessee Department of Corrections, they are likely somewhere in the state prison system. Finally, as to the ability of the class members to pursue individual actions, inmates often pursue pro se actions, but the Court notes that prisoners often have limited opportunities to litigate their grievances. Moreover, separate, individual actions for the specific injunctive relief sought here could result in overlapping and even inconsistent rulings. The Court finds that the numerosity requirement has been met. Class Definition
In Young v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 693 F.3d 532 (6th Cir. 2012), the Sixth Circuit held that before a court may certify a class pursuant to Rule 23, the class definition must be sufficiently definite so that it is administratively feasible for the court to determine whether a particular individual is a member of the proposed class. Id. at 537-38. In Cole v. City of Memphis, 839 F.3d 530, 542 (6th Cir. 2016), the court held that ascertainability is not an additional requirement, however, for certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class seeking only injunctive and declaratory relief. Id.
Here, Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, which would affect all current and future Trousdale inmates with insulin-dependent diabetes who require access to
4
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 142 Filed 10/03/18 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 2546

blood sugar checks and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes.1 Because Plaintiffs seek only injunctive and declaratory relief, not damages, the Court will not include those inmates who were housed at Trousdale in the past, except the current named Plaintiffs, Dodson and Vick. Therefore, the class will have to be more precisely defined as: “all inmates with Type I and insulin-dependent Type II diabetes who are or may become housed at Trousdale Turner Correctional Facility and who require access to blood sugar checks and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes.”2 This definition encompasses Plaintiffs’ and the purported class’ claims against CCA.
This purported class is also appropriate for Plaintiffs’ claims against TDOC and Parker. Plaintiffs’ claims against TDOC and Parker are limited to those inmates with insulin-dependent diabetes who were assigned or transferred by TDOC to Trousdale and, therefore, were allegedly not given appropriate accommodations for their disabilities (diabetes). The alleged appropriate accommodation is access to blood sugar checks and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes, just as with the Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, and the class of insulin-dependent inmates is the same. Commonality

1

This proposed class is “fluid,” as inmates come in and out of Trousdale, sometimes

being transferred to other prisons and sometimes being released. Class certification could insure

against the danger of this action becoming moot. See, e.g., Reynolds v. Giuliani, 118 F. Supp. 2d

352, 391-92 (S.D. N.Y. 2000) (class certification not a mere formality because it can guard

against the danger of the action becoming moot). In Reynolds, as here, the danger of mootness

was magnified by the fact that the defendants had the ability to moot the claims of the named

plaintiffs. Id.

2

Under Rule 23(b)(2), there is no requirement that the identities of all class members even

be ascertained. Cole, 839 F.3d at 542.

5

Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 142 Filed 10/03/18 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 2547

Rule 23's second requirement for class certification is that there be questions of law or fact common to the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). To demonstrate commonality, Plaintiff must show that class members have suffered the same injury. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2555 (2011). Their claims must depend upon a common contention of such a nature that it is capable of class-wide resolution, which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each claim in one stroke. Id. at 2551; Food Lion, LLC v. Dean Foods Co., 312 F.R.D. 472, 483 (E.D. Tenn. 2016).
What matters to class certification is not the raising of common questions, but the capacity of a class-wide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation. Wal-Mart, 131 S.Ct. at 2551. There need be only a single issue common to all members of the class. Emergency Med. Care Facilities v. BlueCross BlueShield of Tenn., Inc., 2016 WL 7429256 at * 4 (W.D. Tenn. April 15, 2016).3
The Court finds that, if it limits the class as set forth above, the most important common questions in this case, with regard to Defendant CCA, are whether CCA fails to provide insulin-dependent inmates with access to blood sugar checks and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes at Trousdale and, if so, whether that failure is unconstitutional. The common questions with regard to Defendants TDOC and Parker are whether their assignments of insulin-dependent inmates to Trousdale violate those inmates’ ADA rights by failing to provide reasonable accommodations for their diabetes. These claims are based

3

The mere fact that questions peculiar to each individual member of the class remain after

the common questions of the defendant’s liability have been resolved does not dictate the

conclusion that a class action is impermissible. In re American Medical Systems, Inc., 75 F.3d

1069, 1080 (6th Cir. 1996); see also Young, 693 F.3d at 543 (presence of questions peculiar to

6

Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 142 Filed 10/03/18 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 2548

upon the same legal theories and will be subject to the same proof. The purported class members have the same basic medical needs for access to blood sugar checks and insulin administration as the named Plaintiffs.4
Defendants argue that the proposed common questions will not generate common answers apt to drive the litigation to resolution. Yet CCA either provided insulin dependent inmates with access to blood sugar checks and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes at Trousdale, or they did not. If they did not, that failure is either deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs’ medical needs, or it is not. CCA’s alleged failure to provide access to this specific care either rose to the level of a policy, practice or custom, or it did not. If the insulin-dependent class members are specifically defined as those requiring access to blood sugar checks and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes, the answers to those questions apply to them all. Similarly, the assignments of these insulin-dependent inmates to Trousdale (by TDOC and Parker) either violated their ADA rights, or they did not. TDOC and Parker either failed to give class members a reasonable accommodation by assigning them to a prison that did not provide access to blood sugar checks and insulin administration in coordination with mealtimes, or they did not.
Defendants’ reliance upon the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Phillips v. Sheriff of Cook County, 828 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2016) is misplaced. In Phillips, the plaintiffs alleged a denial of

each individual member of the class was no bar when liability arose from a single course of conduct).

4

Plaintiffs contend that whether Plaintiffs’ medical conditions involve a serious medical

need for access to blood sugar checks and insulin in coordination with regular mealtimes is one

that can be answered “in one stroke,” based on objective evidence, because the purported class

consists solely of individuals with the same medical condition - insulin-dependent diabetes.

7

Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 142 Filed 10/03/18 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 2549

adequate dental care. The plaintiffs’ dental needs were not all the same and their circumstances were not all the same. Here, Plaintiffs allege that they and the proposed class members (those with Type I and insulin-dependent Type II diabetes) all need access to blood sugar checks and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes, and Plaintiffs contend those needs are not met at Trousdale. Similarly, TDOC’s reliance upon Kress v. CCA of Tenn., LLC, 694 F.3d 890 (7th Cir. 2012) is also misplaced, because that case involved claims of generally inadequate medical care under different circumstances.5
For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown commonality for purposes of Rule 23(a) certification. Typicality
Rule 23(a) requires that the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the members of the class. Thus, a plaintiff’s claim is typical if it arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members and if his claims are based on the same legal theory. Thomas v. Haslam, 303 F. Supp. 3d 585, 636 (M.D. Tenn. 2018). Commonality and typicality tend to merge because both of them serve as guideposts for determining whether, under the particular circumstances, maintenance of a class action is economical, and whether the plaintiff’s claims and the class claims are so interrelated that the interests of the class members will be fairly and adequately protected in their absence. Id.

5

TDOC asserts that the members of the class cannot collectively satisfy the requirements

of an Eighth Amendment “deliberate indifference” claim. Doc. No. 89 at 8 and 13. Plaintiffs do

not assert an Eighth Amendment claim against TDOC.

8

Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 142 Filed 10/03/18 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 2550

Defendants argue that the named Plaintiffs are no longer incarcerated at Trousdale and, therefore, lack both a legal and a personal interest in this litigation. Thus, they argue, Plaintiffs’ claims are not typical of the class. The Court has addressed this issue in ruling on the pending disposition motions and found that, under the circumstances presented here, the named Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action, despite being transferred to other facilities. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that the claims of all of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the class claims because they are all inmates, who either were or are currently at Trousdale, with the same medical condition (insulin-dependent diabetes) and the same serious medical need for access to blood sugar checks and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes.6
Here, the named Plaintiffs’ interests - in receiving access to blood sugar checks and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes - align with those of the class as defined by the Court above. In pursuing their own claims for injunctive relief, the named Plaintiffs will also advance the interests of the class members. Because Plaintiffs have alleged both a single practice or course of conduct and a single theory of liability that gives rise to the claims of the class members as to each Defendant, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the class. Adequacy
The adequacy requirement under Rule 23(a) serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent. Young, 693 F.3d at 543. A class representative must be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury

6

Plaintiffs also assert that all the named Plaintiffs, as a group, have documented repeated

instances when access to basic diabetes care was denied by CCA to inmates with

insulin-dependent diabetes, on a class-wide basis.

9

Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 142 Filed 10/03/18 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 2551

as the class members. Id. In addition, it must appear that the representatives will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel. Id.
For the reasons the Court found there to be commonality and typicality, it also finds that the named Plaintiffs will adequately represent the class. Defendants do not appear to contest, and the Court finds, that Plaintiffs’ counsel are qualified to represent the class in this action. Rule 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2)
Rule 23(b)(1) provides that a class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and proceeding with separate actions by individual class members would create a risk of: (A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class; or (B) adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a practical matter, would substantively impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.
Here, as noted above, individual lawsuits concerning the injunctive relief sought by Plaintiffs could easily lead to inconsistent judgments and incompatible standards of conduct related to insulin-dependent inmates. Courts could arrive at different conclusions as to whether the same conduct is unconstitutional and how to remedy that conduct if it is. Different judges could have different views on the constitutionality of Defendants’ conduct and/or different views on what injunctive relief is most appropriate. These overlapping issues could substantively impair or impede individual inmates’ ability to protect their interests.
Alternatively, Rule 23(b)(2) states that a class action may be maintained if the requirements of Rule 23(a) are met and if the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding
10
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 142 Filed 10/03/18 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 2552

declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole. The Supreme Court has stated that Rule 23(b)(2) applies when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class. Wal-Mart, 131 S.Ct. at 2557.7
Plaintiffs allege one pattern or practice of conduct by CCA toward insulin-dependent diabetic inmates --- refusing to provide access to blood sugar checks and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes. The same alleged misconduct applies to all potential class members. Final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief would affect the class as a whole. Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief that will benefit an entire class of insulin-dependent inmates. Therefore, Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(b)(1) and, alternatively, Rule 23(b)(2).
CONCLUSION Plaintiffs have met the requirements of Rule 23(a), Rule 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2). The Court will certify a class as follows: “All inmates with Type I and insulin-dependent Type II diabetes who are or may become housed at Trousdale Turner Correctional Facility and who require access to blood sugar checks and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes.” It is so ORDERED.
___________________________________ WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7

Rule 23(b)(1) and (2) are “mandatory classes” that provide no opportunity for members to

opt out and do not require notice of the action. Id. at 2558.

11

Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 142 Filed 10/03/18 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 2553

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

DOUGLAS DODSON, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. CORECIVIC, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

NO. 3:17-cv-00048

)

)

JUDGE CAMPBELL

)

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

)

FRENSLEY

MEMORANDUM Pending before the Court are a Motion to Intervene as Plaintiff (Doc. No. 106), filed by the American Diabetes Association (“the Association”), and a related Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 109), filed by Plaintiffs.
BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are inmates who are, or have been, incarcerated at Trousdale Turner Correctional Facility (“Trousdale”), a private prison owned and operated by Defendant CoreCivic (“CCA”), formerly Corrections Corporation of America. Plaintiffs and the proposed class members are persons with insulin-dependent diabetes who require access to blood sugar monitoring and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have deprived, and continue to deprive, Plaintiffs of access to basic diabetes care at Trousdale. Plaintiffs have asserted claims under the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution for Defendants’ alleged failure to provide access to basic diabetes care - blood sugar

Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 144 Filed 10/03/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 2555

monitoring and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief only. The American Diabetes Association seeks to intervene as a party Plaintiff in order to redress its own alleged injuries caused by Defendants’ activity and to ensure that any injunctive relief obtained is consistent with its Standards of Care for Diabetes. Doc. No. 106 at 2-3.
INTERVENTION Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for two kinds of intervention: intervention as of right and intervention with permission. Upon proper motion, a court must permit anyone to intervene who claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). Upon proper motion, a court may permit anyone to intervene who has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). To intervene as a matter of right, a proposed party must establish that: (1) the motion to intervene is timely; (2) the proposed intervenor has a substantial legal interest in the subject matter of the case; (3) the proposed intervenor’s ability to protect that interest may be impaired in the absence of intervention; and (4) the parties already before the court may not adequately represent the proposed intervenor’s interest. Kirsch v. Dean, 733 Fed. App’x. 268, 274 (6th Cir. 2018); Stupak-Thrall v. Glickman, 226 F.3d 467, 471 (6th Cir. 2000). Although Rule 24 should be broadly construed in favor of potential intervenors, failure to meet any one of these criteria will require that the motion to intervene be denied. Kirsch, 733 Fed. App’x at 274.
2
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 144 Filed 10/03/18 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 2556

The Supreme Court has admonished that a court must first be satisfied as to timeliness under Rule 24. Kirsch, 733 Fed. App’x at 274 (citing NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345, 365 (1973)). The court must evaluate timeliness in the context of all relevant circumstances and consider the following five factors:
(1) the point to which the suit has progressed; (2) the purpose for which intervention is sought; (3) the length of time preceding the application during which the proposed intervenors knew or should have known of their interest in the case; (4) the prejudice to the original parties because of the proposed intervenors’ failure to promptly intervene after they knew or reasonably should have known of their interest in the case; and (5) the existence of unusual circumstances militating against or in favor of intervention. Kirsch, 733 Fed. App’x at 274-75 (citing Jansen v. City of Cincinnati, 904 F.2d 336, 340 (6th Cir. 1990)). A review of the progress of this litigation is helpful. Plaintiffs filed this action on January 12, 2017. The Initial Case Management Order was entered by the Magistrate Judge on April 7, 2017. Defendants filed their first dispositive motions on August 17 and 18, 2017. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on September 14, 2017. Defendants’ supplemental dispositive motions were filed on September 18 and 26, 2017. Plaintiffs moved to certify a class on September 27, 2017. The case was reassigned on January 19, 2018, and the Court denied Defendants’ original dispositive motions as moot on February 2, 2018. The Court then stayed discovery, pending resolution of the dispositive motions. The Association filed its Motion to Intervene on March 5, 2018. The Association admits that it knew about this lawsuit from its beginning, having advised Plaintiff Dodson, helped him find counsel, and worked with and advised Plaintiffs’ counsel. The Association contends that this action is in its early stages - no depositions have been taken, little
3
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 144 Filed 10/03/18 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 2557

written discovery has been conducted, and no advanced motions have been filed. This last assertion is incorrect - there are two dispositive motions pending before the Court at this time, motions that could end the entire case.
Defendants, on the other hand, argue that this case is far from its early stages. Defendants assert that the parties have completed written discovery responses, thousands of pages of documents have been exchanged, expert witnesses have been disclosed, those disclosures have been supplemented, and briefing is complete on the pending dispositive motions and the motion to certify a class.
The Court finds that the Association’s Motion to Intervene is untimely. This suit has been filed for 19 months. Defendants have filed Motions to Dismiss and Supplemental Motions to Dismiss, which are fully briefed. Plaintiffs have moved to certify a class, which is being contemporaneously granted. Now that the pending dispositive motions are decided, the stay of discovery can be lifted. The case is set for trial next June.
The Association has known about this lawsuit and has counseled Plaintiffs and their counsel since the very beginning of the case. Waiting until after the Supplemental Motions to Dismiss were briefed and the case had been pending for more than a year is untimely. Moreover, the Association contends that it wishes to redress its own injuries, but the Court sees those injuries are merely its fees for providing counsel to Plaintiffs and monitoring this action. Also, the Court finds that the named Plaintiffs can adequately protect the Association’s interests in the case.
For these reasons, the Association’s Motion to Intervene will be DENIED. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint will also be DENIED.
4
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 144 Filed 10/03/18 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 2558

It is so ORDERED.

___________________________________ WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5 Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 144 Filed 10/03/18 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 2559

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

DOUGLAS DODSON, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. CORECIVIC, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

NO. 3:17-cv-00048

)

)

JUDGE CAMPBELL

)

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

)

FRENSLEY

MEMORANDUM

Pending before the Court are Defendant CoreCivic’s Supplemental Motion to Dismiss

and for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 59) and Defendants Tennessee Department of Corrections

and Tony Parker’s Supplemental Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 65).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Douglas Dodson and Jasper Vick1 are inmates who were incarcerated at

Trousdale Turner Correctional Facility (“Trousdale”), a private prison owned and operated by

Defendant CoreCivic (“CCA”), formerly Corrections Corporation of America. Plaintiffs and the

proposed class members are persons with insulin-dependent diabetes who require access to blood

sugar monitoring and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes. Plaintiffs

assert that Defendants have deprived, and continue to deprive, inmates with insulin-dependent

diabetes access to basic diabetes care at Trousdale.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Tennessee Department of Corrections (“TDOC”), Parker

(as Commissioner) (“the State Defendants”), and CCA have denied Plaintiffs and potential class

members reasonable accommodations for their disabilities, as required by the Rehabilitation Act

Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 146 Filed 10/03/18 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 2561

and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), by assigning them to incarceration at Trousdale. Plaintiffs also aver that CCA has subjected Plaintiffs and potential class members to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by policies and practices that manifest deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ serious medical needs, specifically access to basic diabetes care - blood sugar monitoring and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes. Plaintiffs contend that these actions by all Defendants have caused them serious injury. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief only.
MOTIONS TO DISMISS For purposes of a motion to dismiss, the Court must take all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Id. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Id. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Id. at 1950. A legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation need not be accepted as true on a motion to dismiss, nor are recitations of the elements of a cause of action sufficient. Fritz v. Charter Township of Comstock, 592 F.3d 718, 722 (6th Cir. 2010).

1

Plaintiff Judd has been released from State custody.

2

Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 146 Filed 10/03/18 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 2562

As a general rule, matters outside the pleadings may not be considered in ruling on a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) unless the motion is converted to one for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d).When a document is referred to in the pleadings and is integral to the claims, it may be considered without converting a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. Doe v. Ohio State Univ., 219 F. Supp. 3d 645, 652-53 (S.D. Ohio 2016); Blanch v. Trans Union, LLC, __ F. Supp. 3d __ , 2018 WL 4561248 at * 2 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 24, 2018). Supplemental documents attached to the motion to dismiss do not convert the pleading into one for summary judgment where the documents do not rebut, challenge, or contradict anything in the plaintiff’s complaint. Loffredo v. Daimler AG, 54 F. Supp. 3d 729, 733-34 (E.D. Mich. 2014) (citing Song v. City of Elyria, 985 F.2d 840, 842 (6th Cir. 1993)).
STATE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS The State Defendants ask the Court to dismiss this action based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. They assert that Plaintiff Dodson failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).2 In support of their Motion, the State Defendants rely upon the Affidavit of Benjamin Bean (Doc. No. 67). As indicated above, under the motion to dismiss standard, the Court may not consider documents outside the pleadings, particularly if they rebut, challenge or contradict the complaint, without turning the motion into one for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). Bean’s Affidavit does attempt to rebut, challenge or contradict Plaintiffs’ allegations in the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 55) that they exhausted their administrative remedies. Plaintiffs do dispute Bean’s assertion that Dodson did not exhaust his administrative remedies.

2

Defendants have not asserted that Vick failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

3

Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 146 Filed 10/03/18 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 2563

The Court cannot resolve this disputed issue of fact on a motion to dismiss. Moreover, the Court cannot treat the Motion to Dismiss as one for summary judgment in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d), because the State Defendants have not complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Local Rule 56.01. Therefore, the State Defendants’ Supplemental Motion to Dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies will be denied.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Pennington v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 553 F.3d 447, 450 (6th Cir. 2009). The party bringing the summary judgment motion has the initial burden of informing the Court of the basis for its motion and identifying portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute over material facts. Rodgers v. Banks, 344 F.3d 587, 595 (6th Cir. 2003). The moving party may satisfy this burden by presenting affirmative evidence that negates an element of the non-moving party’s claim or by demonstrating an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. Id. In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court must review all the evidence, facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Van Gorder v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad, Inc., 509 F.3d 265, 268 (6th Cir. 2007). The Court does not, however, weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, or determine the truth of the matter. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). The Court determines whether sufficient evidence has been presented to make the issue of fact a proper jury question. Id. The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the nonmoving party’s position
4
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 146 Filed 10/03/18 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 2564

will be insufficient to survive summary judgment; rather, there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the nonmoving party. Rodgers, 344 F.3d at 595.
CCA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Mootness
There is no disputed issue of fact as to whether Plaintiffs have been transferred to other facilities. The question is whether those transfers cause Plaintiffs’ claims to be moot. Plaintiffs argue that their claims are not moot, because they are still eligible to be returned to Trousdale. Therefore, Plaintiffs contend, they still have standing to pursue their claims. Plaintiffs also assert that the allegations of their Amended Complaint are “capable of repetition, yet evading review” and, therefore, are not moot. Moreover, Plaintiffs claim that, because this is a putative class action, Defendants may not use the “picking off” tactic to transfer Plaintiffs from Trousdale in order to moot Plaintiffs’ class claims.
A core tenet of Article III is that federal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies. Wilson v. Gordon, 822 F.3d 934, 941 (6th Cir. 2016). To invoke federal jurisdiction, a plaintiff must show a “personal stake” in the outcome of the action. United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 138 S.Ct. 1532, 1537 (2018). This requirement assures that the federal judiciary confines itself to its constitutionally-limited role of adjudicating actual and concrete disputes, the resolutions of which have direct consequences on the parties involved. Id. A case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. L.D. v. Sumner County Schools, 299 F. Supp. 3d 901, 905-06 (M.D. Tenn. 2018). A case that becomes moot at any point during the proceedings is no longer a
5
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 146 Filed 10/03/18 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 2565

case or controversy for purposes of Article III and is outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Sanchez-Gomez, 138 S.Ct. at 1537.
When class actions are involved,3 the Article III mootness doctrine is “flexible.” Wilson, 822 F.3d at 942. The general rule is that once a class is certified, the mooting of the named plaintiff’s claim does not moot the action, and the court continues to have jurisdiction to hear the merits of the action if a controversy exists between any class member and the defendant. Id. When the named plaintiff’s claim becomes moot before a class is certified,4 however, the ordinary rule is that dismissal of the action is required. Id. But, there are exceptions to this rule. Capable of Repetition, Evading Review
One of those exceptions is for claims that are “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” which applies only in exceptional situations - generally only where the named plaintiff can make a reasonable showing that he will again be subjected to the alleged illegality. L.D., 299 F. Supp. 3d at 907. This exception is limited to situations where the following two circumstances are simultaneously present: (1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same

3

In two cases previously before this Court, the inmate plaintiffs’ claims became moot

when they were transferred to other facilities. Those cases were not class actions, and the Court

found (in both cases) that a prisoner’s transfer to a new facility moots his claims for declaratory

or injunctive relief arising from the particular condition of confinement at the former prison.

Whipple v. Millay, 2017 WL 4176339 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 21, 2017) and Dodson v. Colson, 2014

WL 2946455 (M.D. Tenn. June 30, 2014).

4

The Court is contemporaneously granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify a Class in this

case.

6

Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 146 Filed 10/03/18 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 2566

complaining party will be subject to the same action again. Id. (citing Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 17 (1998)).5
Here, especially given the length of litigation and the shortage of judges in this district, the challenged action could easily be too short to be fully litigated before any named Plaintiffs being transferred from Trousdale. Citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-24-103(d),6 Plaintiffs contend that there is a reasonable expectation that, even though they were transferred from Trousdale, they are still eligible to return so long as they are in Tennessee’s prison system. Defendants assert that this argument is pure speculation, not a reasonable expectation. Speculation does not give Plaintiffs a reasonable expectation that they will be returned to Trousdale. See Wilson, 822 F.3d at 952; Whipple v. Millay, 2017 WL 4176339 at * 5 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 21, 2017) (inmate’s speculation that he might return to Turney Center at an unknown future date does not constitute a reasonable showing that he will again be subjected to the conditions at that prison).
Plaintiffs cite Washington v. Harper, 110 S.Ct. 1028 (1990), in support of their argument. In Washington, the inmate was being treated for a serious mental disorder. He challenged the defendant’s use of anti-psychotic drugs at a center for mentally ill prisoners (the “Center”). The Court found that, even though the defendant had stopped administering anti-psychotic drugs to the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s claim was not moot because he was still diagnosed with mental illness and was subject to transfer to the Center at any time. Id. at 1035. Given the plaintiff’s medical history, the Court found it reasonable to conclude that there was a strong likelihood that he might

5

The party asserting the exception bears the burden of proof. Barry v. Lyon, 834 F.3d 706,

715 (6th Cir. 2016).

6

That statute provides that any inmate sentenced to confinement in TDOC shall be legally

eligible to be incarcerated in a facility in which a prison contractor is providing correctional

services.

7

Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 146 Filed 10/03/18 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 2567

again be transferred to the Center for mentally ill prisoners. Id. The facts in Washington are distinguishable. Here, there is no need for Plaintiffs to be returned to Trousdale for medical care; indeed, the subject of this action is Plaintiffs’ claim that the medical care at Trousdale is not appropriate for them.
Plaintiffs cannot rely upon the capable of repetition, evading review exception to mootness because they have not shown a reasonable expectation that they will be returned to Trousdale. Picking Off Exception
In Wilson, the court recognized another exception to the mootness doctrine, the “picking off” exception, where a defendant picks off named plaintiffs in a purported class action before the class is certified. Wilson, 822 F.3d at 947; Unan v. Lyon, 853 F.3d 279, 285 (6th Cir. 2017). The picking off exception was developed to prevent defendants from strategically avoiding litigation by settling or buying off individual named plaintiffs in a way that would be contrary to sound judicial administration. Id. Courts recognize this exception even when a motion for class certification is still pending, because a defendant is on notice that the named plaintiff wishes to proceed as a class, and the concern is that the defendant might strategically seek to avoid that possibility. Id. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants transferred Dodson and Vick from Trousdale in order to moot this litigation and avoid a class action.
The Sixth Circuit has applied the picking off exception where the defendant was alleged to have strategically mooted the named plaintiffs’ claims by providing the relief sought to the named plaintiffs before a class action could be certified. See, e.g., Blankenship v. Secretary of HEW, 587 F.2d 329, 331-33 (6th Cir. 1978) (quoted in Wilson, 822 F.3d at 948); Unan, 853 F.3d
8
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 146 Filed 10/03/18 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 2568

at 286 (defendant was strategically seeking to avoid litigation by selectively resolving the claims of any potential representatives as soon as they became known to defendant).
In Blankenship, the court held that a class action to challenge delays by the Social Security Administration in scheduling administrative hearings was not moot, even though all of the named plaintiffs received their hearings before the district court granted class certification. The court explained that the plaintiffs’ claims of delay were the type of claims which continually evade review because the defendants could expedite processing for any named plaintiffs while continuing to allow long delays for other applicants. Blankenship, 587 F.2d at 333 (cited in Wilson, 822 F.3d at 948). “Refusal to consider a class-wide remedy merely because individual class members no longer need relief would mean that no remedy could ever be provided for continuing abuses.”Id.; see also Wilson, 822 F.3d at 948-50 (collecting cases).
Here, there is no persuasive evidence that Defendants intentionally “picked off” the named Plaintiffs in order to strategically avoid litigation. At best, there are genuine issues of material fact concerning this allegation. In any event, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims are not moot for another reason, as explained below. Inherently Transitory
The court in Wilson applied another exception to the mootness doctrine called the “inherently transitory” exception. In order for this exception to apply, (1) the injury must be so transitory that it would likely evade review by becoming moot before the district court could rule on class certification and (2) it must be clear that other potential class members are suffering the injury. Wilson, 822 F.3d at 945; Unan, 853 F.3d at 287. The key inquiry for assessing whether something is inherently transitory is not merely how long a claim is likely to remain active.
9
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 146 Filed 10/03/18 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 2569

Rather, the crux of the inherently transitory exception is the uncertainty about the length of time a claim will remain alive. Id.7
The Supreme Court has held that a class action remained alive, even though no named class representative with an unexpired claim remained at the time of class certification. Gerstein v. Pugh, 95 S.Ct. 854, 861, n.11 (1975) (cited in Sanchez-Gomez, 138 S.Ct. at 1537). In Gerstein, the Court held that because pretrial custody was inherently temporary and of uncertain length, such that the Court could not determine that any given individual named as a plaintiff would be in pretrial custody long enough for a district judge to certify a class, and because it was certain that there would always be some group of detainees subject to the challenged practice, the class action could proceed. Id.
Unlike the capable of repetition, evading review exception, this exception does not require the plaintiffs to show that they personally will be subject to the same practices again. Wilson, 822 F.3d at 944. In Gerstein, the Court required only that other class members would suffer the same injury. Id. at 945. Here, Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown that, without the requested relief, other insulin-dependent inmates will suffer the same injury at Trousdale. Given the control by Defendants over Plaintiffs and potential class members, there is uncertainty about the length of time these inmates will be subject to the alleged deprivations at Trousdale. As noted above, given the length of litigation and the shortage of judges in this district, any challenged

7

See also Gawry v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 395 Fed. App’x. 152, 159 (6th Cir.

2010) (Plaintiff knew exactly when her claim would become moot and yet did not move for class

certification until several years later) and Olson v. Brown, 594 F.3d 577, 583 (7th Cir. 2010)

(cited in Gawry) (duration of inmate’s claim was at the discretion of the Indiana Department of

Correction, and uncertainty made the inherently transitory exception applicable).

10

Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 146 Filed 10/03/18 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 2570

action (or lack thereof) at Trousdale could be too short to be fully litigated before the named Plaintiffs or other class members are transferred.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs may rely upon the “inherently transitory” exception to mootness in order to show standing in this case. CCA’s motion on the mootness issue will be denied. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Like the State Defendants, CCA also asserts that Plaintiff Dodson has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and, thus, his claims must be dismissed. CCA does not dispute that Plaintiff Vick exhausted those remedies. Plaintiff Dodson contends that he was prevented by CCA from exhausting his administrative remedies.
Federal law provides that no action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under Section 1983 or any other federal law by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, not a pleading requirement. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007); McBee v. Campbell County Detention Center, 2018 WL 2046303 (6th Cir. Mar. 15, 2018). The dominant concerns of the statute are to promote administrative redress, filter out groundless claims, and foster better prepared litigation of claims aired in court. Napier v. Laurel County, Ky, 636 F.3d 218, 222 (6th Cir. 2011).
In order to properly exhaust administrative remedies, an inmate must comply with the grievance procedures established by the particular state in which he is incarcerated. Pool v. Klenz, 2018 WL 1989637 at * 2 (6th Cir. Jan. 17, 2018) (citing Jones, 549 U.S. at 218). Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules because no adjudicative system can function effectively without imposing some orderly structure
11
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 146 Filed 10/03/18 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 2571

on the course of its proceedings. Scott v. Ambani, 577 F.3d 642, 647 (6th Cir. 2009). A prisoner cannot satisfy the exhaustion requirement by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance. Id. In addition, the content of the grievance must be adequate; for example, the grievance must identify each defendant eventually sued and allege mistreatment or misconduct on the part of the defendant. Bell v. Konteh, 450 F.3d 651, 653-54 (6th Cir. 2006). It is sufficient if the prisoner’s grievance gave prison officials fair notice of the alleged mistreatment or misconduct that forms the basis of the constitutional or statutory claim. Id. at 654.
It is not disputed that CCA has an administrative grievance system at Trousdale. The procedures in this system involve three levels of review. CCA contends that Dodson filed three grievances but failed to appeal any of them to the highest level. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants prevented Plaintiff Dodson from filing and appealing his grievances.
If a plaintiff contends he was prevented from exhausting his administrative remedies, the defendant must present evidence that the plaintiff’s ability was not hindered. Doe v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 2016 WL 465496 at * 11 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 8, 2016). In Doe, the court found a triable issue of fact as to exhaustion, making a grant of summary judgment inappropriate. Id. see also Surles v. Andison, 678 F.3d 452, 457-58 (6th Cir. 2012) (dispute of material fact as to whether defendants prevented plaintiff from filing grievances and exhausting his administrative remedies).
There are disputed issues of fact as to whether Dodson was prevented from exhausting his administrative remedies in this case. In any event, because this case is being certified as a class action, the Court must consider whether Vick’s exhaustion, which is not disputed, is sufficient.
12
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 146 Filed 10/03/18 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 2572

In limited circumstances, an inmate may rely upon another inmate’s grievance for exhaustion purposes. The doctrine of “vicarious exhaustion” allows a single member of a class action to satisfy the exhaustion requirement for all class members by exhausting his or her own administrative remedies with respect to each class claim. Taylor v. Lindamoon, 2017 WL 4176338 at * 4 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 19, 2017). The vicarious exhaustion doctrine is available to plaintiffs only where a class has been certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2). Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278, 1287 (11th Cir. 2004). The Chandler court noted that where, as here, the composition of the class is subject to constant change beyond the class members’ control, it could be extraordinarily difficult for all class members to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. Id. Moreover, requiring all class members to exhaust their administrative remedies “could impose an intolerable burden upon the inmate complaint review system.” Id.
The Court is contemporaneously certifying a class in this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(1) and (b)(2). Therefore, pursuant to the above authorities, Plaintiffs have, at a minimum, raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether Dodson and other members of the class may rely upon Vick’s exhaustion to proceed. CCA’s motion on the exhaustion issue will be denied. Americans with Disabilities Act - Title II8
Defendant CCA contends that it is not subject to Title II of the ADA and, therefore, cannot be liable to Plaintiffs thereunder. Title II of the ADA provides that no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied

8

Although the Amended Complaint alleges failure to accommodate and discrimination

under Section 504 or the Rehabilitation Act, that claim is brought against the State Defendants

only. Doc. No. 55 at ¶ 81.

13

Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 146 Filed 10/03/18 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 2573

the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12132. “Public entity” includes any state or local government and any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a state or local government. 42 U.S.C. § 12131.
Title II of the ADA applies to prisoners housed in state prisons. Maher v. Tenn., 2018 WL 1404405 at * 4 (W.D. Tenn. March 20, 2018). However, even though CCA may have contracted with the State of Tennessee to provide governmental prison services, that does not convert CCA into a “public entity” for purposes of Title II. Id. CCA, as a private prison, is not subject to Title II of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7); Anderson v. South Central Correctional Facility, 2015 WL 5794524 at * 4 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 1, 2015); Logan v. Corrections Corp. of America, 2012 WL 2160276 at * 6 (M.D. Tenn. June 12, 2012); Edison v. Douberly, 604 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 2010).
Plaintiffs agree with the dissent in Edison and argue that CCA should be subject to suit under Title II of the ADA. Plaintiffs contend that cases that have held to the contrary are wrongly decided. The Court will not depart from the majority view, however, unless and until the Sixth Circuit holds otherwise. Plaintiffs’ Title II ADA claims against CCA will be dismissed.
14
Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 146 Filed 10/03/18 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 2574

CONCLUSION For all these reasons, Defendants Tennessee Department of Corrections and Tony Parker’s Supplemental Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 65) will be denied. Defendant CoreCivic’s Supplemental Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 59) will be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s ADA claims against CCA will be dismissed. It is so ORDERED.
___________________________________ WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15 Case 3:17-cv-00048 Document 146 Filed 10/03/18 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 2575