Mitchell’s death on this litigation, as that issue has not been addressed by the parties. The Court’s resolution of the arguments herein does not address the effect of Ms. 1 During the pendency of this litigation, Plaintiff Tanya Mitchell passed away, and Plaintiffs have filed a pending motion to substitute her estate as a party for purposes of Counts 7, 11, 21, and 23. The named Plaintiffs seek to represent a class to obtain damages and injunctive relief on their claims. Plaintiffs assert constitutional and state law claims against Giles County and Sheriff Kyle Helton.
Plaintiffs assert constitutional claims, claims brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), and state law claims against the CPS Defendants and the PSI Defendants. Plaintiffs Mitchell and Brandon allege they have been supervised by “the PSI Defendants” or “PSI” (Progressive Sentencing, Inc., PSI-Probation II, LLC, PSIProbation, L.L.C., Tennessee Correctional Services, LLC, Timothy Cook, Markeyta Bledsoe, and Harriet Thompson). Plaintiffs McNeil, Johnson, and Hilfort allege they have been supervised by the “CPS Defendants” or “CPS” (Community Probation Services, LLC, Community Probation Services, L.L.C., Community Probation Services, and Patricia McNair). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Karen McNeil, Lesley Johnson, Tanya Mitchell, 1 Indya Hilfort, and Lucinda Brandon allege they are indigent individuals who have been placed on probation for misdemeanor offenses by the Giles County courts, and that their probation is supervised by one of the two named private probation companies. Count 6 (the due process claim for equitable relief) Count 14 (the equal protection and due process claim for equitable relief) Count 16 (the unjust enrichment claim) Counts 19 and 20 (the abuse of process claims) and Count 24 (the civil conspiracy claim) remain for trial. Accordingly, Count 1 (the RICO claim) Count 5 (the due process claim for damages) Count 9 (the equal protection claim for damages) Count 10 (the equal protection claim for equitable relief) and Count 13 (the equal protection and due process claim for damages) are dismissed. 369) is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. 374) is DENIED, and the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc.
374) with regards to Plaintiff Tanya Mitchell’s claims for injunctive relief. 384), requesting they be allowed to join the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. The PSI Defendants have filed a Notice (Doc. 389), and the CPS Defendants’ Reply (Doc. Also pending before the Court are the CPS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 387), and the CPS Defendants’ Reply (Doc. INTRODUCTION Pending before the Court are the CPS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 1:18-cv-00033 JUDGE CAMPBELL MAGISTRATE JUDGE FRENSLEY MEMORANDUM I. COMMUNITY PROBATION SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants. 414 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE COLUMBIA DIVISION KAREN MCNEIL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Community Probation Services, LLC et al Doc.
0 kommentar(er)
