Source: http://tn.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180319_0000268.ETN.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 13:19:21+00:00

Document:
SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS, FRANCHESKA SHOWN, DEXTER LUNCEFORD, and ERIC TRIVETT, Defendants.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's pro se amended complaint for violation of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [Doc. 5]. On November 15, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff's original complaint and found that “the Court [was] unable to properly screen Plaintiff's complaint in compliance with the PLRA [Prison Litigation Reform Act], because the precise nature of his claims [were] unclear.” [Doc. 4 at 4]. The Court then granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint “specifying a full description of his claim, the personal involvement of each Defendant, and the grounds for relief” [Id.]. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint on December 29, 2017 [Doc. 5].
Plaintiff's amended complaint must also be screened to determine whether it states a claim entitling Plaintiff to relief, or is frivolous or malicious, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants Dexter Lunceford (“Lunceford”) and Eric Trivett (“Trivett”) will be DISMISSED. Accordingly, this action will proceed only as to Plaintiff's claims of medical deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Francheska Shown (“Shown”) and Southern Health Partners (“SHP”).
In his amended complaint, Plaintiff brings suit against Defendants SHP, Shown, Lunceford, and Trivett [Doc. 5 at 1]. Plaintiff asserts that he is not being treated for his mental health issues, as medical staff at the Carter County Jail, including Defendant Shown, have stated that they cannot treat Plaintiff until they obtain copies of his medical records [Id. at 4]. However, Plaintiff claims that medical staff at the jail have stated that they are unable to obtain his medical records [Id.]. Plaintiff alleges that he has wrote to SHP complaining about his lack of medical treatment, and has filed several sick calls with the medical staff at the jail, including Defendant Shown [Id.]. Additionally, Plaintiff claims that he filed several grievances with Defendant Trivett, the Carter County Jail administrator, and appealed the denial of these grievances to Defendant Lunceford [Id.].
Plaintiff also claims that Defendants Trivett and Lunceford violated his constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by placing Plaintiff in lock down for thirty days, and taking his “sheet bleak-matt for 12 and a half hours a day” [Id. at 5]. Plaintiff requests damages for his pain and suffering, for the Court to issue an order requiring SHP and Defendant Shown to provide him with mental health medication, as well as for the Court to appoint him an attorney [Id.].
Plaintiff alleges that he was denied mental health treatment, in that Defendants Shown and SHP failed to provide him with his mental health medication [Doc. 5 at 4]. Failure to provide medical care, including care for mental health conditions, may give rise to a violation of a prisoner's rights under the Eighth Amendment. See Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693, 703 (6th Cir. 2001). An Eighth Amendment claim is composed of two parts: an objective component, which requires a plaintiff to show a “sufficiently serious” deprivation, and a subjective component, which requires him to show a sufficiently culpable state of mind-one of “deliberate indifference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). However, a prisoner whose claims are based on a theory of medical negligence has not stated a claim under § 1983 because medical malpractice is not a constitutional violation. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-06 (1976). Additionally, no claim is stated where some medical treatment is provided, and the dispute is over the adequacy of such treatment. See Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 860 n.5 (6th Cir. 1976). For example, “[w]hen a prison doctor provides treatment, albeit carelessly or inefficaciously to a prisoner, he has not displayed a deliberate indifference to the prisoner's needs, but merely a degree of incompetence which does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.” Comstock, 273 F.3d at 703.

References: § 1983
 § 1915
 § 1915
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v.