11/21/2023 0 Comments Sumner co psi probationMitchell’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. We are registered as an "In-Person" "At-Home" Court Program Provider and guarantee court acceptance or your money back.McNeil et al v. Although our classes are done on-line we are not categorized as an on-line program provider. Providing over 2 Dozen Programs and Assessments. Designed for modern individuals who need to take court ordered courses for court ordered requirements, at the request of their employer, or for personal reasons. Currently in our 15th year with now over 9200 clients who have successfully completed and satisfied their court orders through our program. Each participant will be assigned an individual case manager, and, upon completion of our program, will receive a "Certificate of Completion" again without any additional fees.Ĭourt Ordered Classes is the School Name of Court Ordered Programs, an In-Person Program Provider with multiple Brick & Mortar locations Nationwide. That is the same reason that the judges, officers or social workers that have reviewed us do not consider our programs as on-line classes but as classroom classes. Those Judges that are familiar with us know how our classes work and the participation level required to complete them, that is why we are able to provide our programs in 99% of the cities on those lists below. Please read your orientation upon enrollment to guide you through the process. ![]() Each city and county listed above may be approved by the courts for at least one of our classes, or is pending approval for one of our offered courses. *It is your responsibility to confirm with the judge, probation, or your attorney as to whether a In-Person distance-learning or "At-Home" court ordered program will meet your requirements.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |