Sylvester Reed v. Northeast Ohio Correctional Center et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted CoreCivic's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss claims arising from alleged denial of post-surgery medical care at Northeast Ohio Correctional Center. The court held that the plaintiff failed to state viable claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bivens, or the ADA, and dismissed the claim for injunctive relief as moot. Claims against some unserved defendants were dismissed without prejudice, while other claims were dismissed with prejudice for the reasons stated in the opinion.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state a § 1983 claim against CoreCivic because it alleged no facts showing that CoreCivic acted under color of state law or that a CoreCivic policy or custom caused a constitutional violation.
2. Reed could not pursue a Bivens damages claim against CoreCivic, its private-prison personnel, or the United States Marshals Service.
3. The complaint failed to state an ADA claim because it did not identify a specific ADA provision or plead facts showing a qualifying disability, eligibility for a program or service, exclusion or denial of benefits, or discrimination because of disability.
4. Reed's requests for declaratory and injunctive relief concerning NEOCC and its staff were moot because he had been transferred to another correctional institution.
5. The claims against Hightower, Peter Elliot, and Shane Marchal were dismissed without prejudice because Reed failed to complete service within the time required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
6. NEOCC is a non-juridical facility lacking a separate existence and is not capable of being sued.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Reed stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against CoreCivic for alleged inadequate medical care at a private prison.
2. Whether Reed stated a Bivens claim for damages against CoreCivic or the United States Marshals Service.
3. Whether Reed adequately pleaded an Americans with Disabilities Act claim against CoreCivic.
4. Whether Reed's requests for declaratory or injunctive relief became moot after his transfer from NEOCC.
5. Whether claims against unserved defendants should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
6. Whether Northeast Ohio Correctional Center is a juridical entity capable of being sued.

Disposition

dismissed