Gary Montgomery v. Frank Strada, Dr. John Richeson, and Centurion Health Care of Tennessee, LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee screened a prisoner’s § 1983 complaint alleging constitutionally inadequate dental care and related claims under the Affordable Care Act. The court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the action for failure to state a claim, concluding that the plaintiff’s preference for a crown or cap over extraction did not establish deliberate indifference and that the claims against the supervisory official and contractor were inadequately pleaded. The court denied the plaintiff’s motions for class certification, appointment of counsel, and injunctive relief as moot or unsupported.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state a plausible ACA claim because Montgomery identified no specific ACA provision violated and alleged no exclusion from, denial of benefits under, or discrimination in a health-insurance plan.
2. A prisoner complaint must be dismissed at screening when it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a plausible claim, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant.
3. Any claims based on dental care at the Davidson County Jail or Bledsoe County Correctional Complex were time-barred because the latest alleged violations there occurred more than one year before the complaint was filed.
4. Offering an extraction rather than a requested cap or crown does not constitute deliberate indifference where the complaint does not allege that extraction was medically inappropriate or would not resolve the dental problem.
5. The official-capacity claim against Strada failed because it was treated as a claim against the State or TDOC, which is not a person subject to § 1983 liability; the individual-capacity claim failed because the complaint did not allege Strada's direct participation or encouragement of unconstitutional conduct.
6. The claim against Centurion failed because the complaint did not plausibly allege that a Centurion policy or custom was the moving force behind a constitutional deprivation.
7. Montgomery's request for injunctive relief was moot after he left TDOC custody and was transferred to a different detention facility.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a private claim under the Affordable Care Act for allegedly inadequate prison dental care.
2. Whether the claims concerning dental care at the Davidson County Jail and Bledsoe County Correctional Complex were timely under the applicable one-year statute of limitations.
3. Whether offering extraction instead of a cap, crown, or other restorative treatment plausibly alleged deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment.
4. Whether the claims against the TDOC commissioner in official and individual capacities stated a § 1983 claim.
5. Whether the claims against Centurion adequately alleged that a corporate policy or custom caused a constitutional deprivation.
6. Whether Montgomery could represent a prisoner class while proceeding pro se.
7. Whether Montgomery's request for injunctive relief became moot after his release from TDOC custody.

Disposition

dismissed