Harris v. State of Mississippi et al

Filing 83

ORDER adopting 72 Report and Recommendations. The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball is hereby adopted as the finding of this Court, and the entire action should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. A judgment will be entered in a separate docket entry to follow. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on January 8, 2014. (SP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
DETRICK DEWAYNE HARRIS
VS.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-cv-883-DPJ-FKB

HINDS COUNTY, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

This pro se prisoner action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is before the Court on the
Report and Recommendation [72] of the United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Detrick
Dewayne Harris is a state prisoner and he alleges that he was improperly transferred, subjected to
excessive force, and denied medical treatment. United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball
recommends dismissing this action as frivolous. Harris filed Objections [73]. The Court finds
that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.
I.

Background
Harris initiated this action on December 26, 2012. He sues various state and local entities

and officers. Harris alleges that he was incarcerated at the East Mississippi Correctional Facility
in 2010 on a prior conviction. On July 14, 2010, he was released and handed over to the Hinds
County Detention Center (HCDC) to await trial on additional charges from 2007. He complains
that he did not waive extradition and that MDOC did not give its permission for, and he did not
receive notice of, the transfer. He also alleges there were no pre-deprivation procedures prior to
the transfer. Liberally construed, he appears to allege that he was not served with an arrest
warrant. He alleges that this arrest caused him to be subjected to various unconstitutional
conditions of confinement at the Hinds County Detention Center while he was awaiting trial. He
also claims that he was denied emergency medical treatment for acid reflux. Finally, Harris

claims that the Jackson Police Department caused him to be wrongfully convicted and sentenced
to four life sentences.
II.

Analysis
Judge Ball’s report and recommendation finds that Harris has not alleged a constitutional

deprivation related to his transfer and housing at HCDC. The Court agrees. Harris has not
presented any facts that would support a claim that he was unlawfully transferred to HCDC.
According to testimony at the hearing, Harris believes he was attacked by “glistening . . . DNA
components, not of a human form” while at HCDC. There is no allegation that he was attacked
by any person. He cannot sustain a claim based on excessive force.
Harris also claims he was denied medical treatment. A pretrial detainee has a due process
right to receive reasonable medical care. See Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 650 (5th Cir.
1996). The right is equivalent to the Eight Amendment right enjoyed by prisoners. Id. Thus, a
pretrial detainee seeking to recover for a denial of reasonable medical care must allege deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.
1991); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976). To establish deliberate indifference, a
plaintiff must show that the defendant “refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally
treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton
disregard for any serious medical needs.” Domino v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d
752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001). “A delay in medical care violates the Eighth Amendment only if it is
based on deliberate indifference and results in substantial harm.” Cullum v. Texas Dep't of
Criminal Justice, 375 F. App'x 417, 419 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d
191, 195 (5th Cir.1993)). In his objections, Harris alleges that a guard told him “why do you
2

have to do this on my shift” and sent him back to his cell. But Harris admits he received medical
attention an hour or two after his request when the next guard came on shift. He never alleges a
serious medical need or substantial harm. His claim for denial of medical treatment is dismissed.
As to Harris’ claims that he was arrested without probable cause and convicted based on
false evidence, Judge Ball’s recommendation is that these claims are barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and that Harris fails to sufficiently state a claim. “Heck
specifies that a prisoner cannot use § 1983 to obtain damages where success would necessarily
imply the unlawfulness of a (not previously invalidated) conviction or sentence.” Wilkinson v.
Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81 (2005). In such a case, “a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the
conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared
invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such a determination, or called into question by a
federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486–87.
Both of these claims are barred by Heck as they would necessarily imply the invalidity of
Harris’ conviction and Harris has not pleaded that his convictions have been invalidated in any
way. See Shaw v. Harris, 116 F. App’x 499, 500 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding claims that false
evidence was presented at trial and state habeas proceeding barred by Heck); Sappington v.
Bartee, 195 F.3d 234, 237 (5th Cir. 1999) (finding claim based on theory that there was no
probable cause for the arrest barred by Heck). Moreover, Harris does not present sufficient facts
to sustain these claims. They are therefore dismissed.
Harris’ objections are mostly incomprehensible. He seems to object to the dismissal of
his claims against certain defendants who never appeared to defendant this lawsuit. But the
Court has the authority to dismiss a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “at any time if the court
3

determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous . . . [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii) (emphasis added). And, “the court is authorized to
test the proceeding for frivolousness or maliciousness even before service of process or before
the filing of the answer.” Ali v. Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 1990). Otherwise, Harris’
objections do nothing more than state in a conclusory manner that Judge Ball’s findings are
clearly erroneous. He does not present any facts or legal authority that would tend to
demonstrate that he is entitled to any relief.
III.

Conclusion
It is therefore ordered that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

Judge F. Keith Ball be, and the same is hereby, adopted as the finding of this Court, and the same
entire action should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). This dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).
A separate judgment will be entered herein in accordance with the Order as required by
Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 8th day of January, 2014.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4