McCorvey v. Prison Transport Services of America, LLC
2:16-cv-16993
E.D. La.Apr 25, 2017Background
- Michael McCorvey, a state inmate, sued Prison Transport Services of America, LLC (Nashville), its unidentified president, Officers Jordan and Davison (allegedly Nashville residents), and Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin Gusman under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for conditions and injuries during a seven-day interstate prisoner transport from South Carolina to New Orleans.
- Alleged facts: overcrowded van, prolonged inability to maintain hygiene, an ‘‘almost fatal’’ collision in Atlanta, leg injury, loss of balance, painful ear infection, and later arthritis; no medical care during the trip but treatment upon arrival in New Orleans.
- At a Spears hearing plaintiff conceded Gusman only ‘‘executed the extradition’’ and had no personal involvement in the transport or trip events; plaintiff received adequate medical care after arrival and was not currently being denied care.
- Court found the connection to the Eastern District of Louisiana tenuous: most events occurred in transit and most defendants and evidence are located in Tennessee; Gusman resides in the district but lacked personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violations.
- Magistrate Judge recommended: dismiss claims against Sheriff Gusman with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2) for being frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim; sever and transfer the remaining claims against the Tennessee defendants to the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville Division).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue | Case may proceed in Eastern District because plaintiff is incarcerated there | Most events and defendants are in Tennessee; only Gusman is in this district | Eastern District not proper for most claims; transfer to Middle District of Tennessee ordered for Tennessee defendants |
| Personal involvement of Sheriff Gusman | Gusman executed extradition and is named as defendant | Gusman had no role in transport or alleged abuses | Gusman dismissed with prejudice—personal involvement essential to § 1983 liability |
| Screening/dismissal under § 1915A/§ 1915(e)(2) | Claims are non-frivolous based on allegations of harm during transport | Court applied screening statute to dismiss claims lacking factual basis or legal theory | Court concluded Gusman’s claim frivolous/failed to state a claim and dismissed under screening statutes |
| State-action for private transport company | Transport company and employees acted under color of state law during official extradition/contracted transport | (Implicit) potential defense that private actor not state actor | Court declined to resolve state-action question; allowed claims to proceed by transferring them to Tennessee for adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- Reeves v. Collins, 27 F.3d 174 (5th Cir. 1994) (defines frivolous complaint standard)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (court may dismiss claims with clearly baseless factual allegations)
- Macias v. Raul A., 23 F.3d 94 (5th Cir. 1994) (discusses dismissal of baseless prisoner claims)
- In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 2007) (pleading plausibility standard discussion)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (establishes plausibility pleading standard)
- Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381 (5th Cir. 1983) (personal involvement is essential to § 1983 liability)
- Wyndham Assocs. v. Bintliff, 398 F.2d 614 (2d Cir. 1968) (severance and transfer of defendants for convenience and justice)