Davis v. Freeman et al

Filing 53

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING 32 Report and Recommendations and FURTHER ORDERED that 29 motion for judgment is DENIED. Signed by Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 12/28/20015. (sm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
FIDEL DAVIS

§

v.

§

OFFICER FREEMAN, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14cv124

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
The Plaintiff Fidel Davis, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.
§1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights. This Court referred the case to
the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order
for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
Plaintiff filed a motion for nominal and punitive damgaes based on cruel and unusual
punishment, arguing that he was entitled to such damages because he was denied due process in a
prison disciplinary hearing. The Magistrate Judge construed this request as a motion for judgment
on the pleadings, which is designed to dispose of cases where the material facts are not in dispute
and a judgment on the merits can be rendered by looking to the substance of the pleadings and any
judicially noticed facts. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c); Hebert Abstract v. Touchstone Properties, Ltd., 914
F.2d 74, 76 (5th Cir. 1990).
After review of the motion and the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
recommending Jackson’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied. The Magistrate Judge
stated Jackson did not allege or show the material facts were not in dispute, but set out his own
version of the facts and argued he was entitled to judgment based on that version. Jackson thus did
not meet the requirements for a Rule 12(c) motion.

1

In his first set of objections, Plaintiff argues the disciplinary case of which he complains was
overturned, which he contends proves his due process rights were violated. As the Fifth Circuit has
explained, the Constitution does not guarantee that only the guilty will be arrested; if it did, §1983
would provide a cause of action for defendant acquitted and every suspect released. Smith v.
Gonzales, 670 F.2d 522, 526 (5th Cir. 1982). Similarly, the Constitution does not provide a cause
of action for every inmate whose disciplinary case is overturned on appeal. See Romero v. Lann,
civil action no. 5:06cv82, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48926 (E.D.Tex., July 6, 2007), aff’d 305 F.App’x
242, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 26586 (5th Cir., December 29, 2008). Nor has Plaintiff shown the
material facts are not in dispute concerning his claim of denial of due process.
In his supplemental objections, Plaintiff again contends the disciplinary case was
overturned and the unit declined to rehear it. He states Warden Grounds went against policy in
denying his Step One appeal of the disciplinary conviction, but fails to show the material facts
are not in dispute or he is entitled to judgment in favor based on the fact his disciplinary
conviction was overturned on appeal. Plaintiff’s objections are without merit.
The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s

.

proposed findings and recommendations to which the Plaintiff objected. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)
(district judge shall “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”) Upon such de novo review,
the Court has determined the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct and the Plaintiff’s objections
are without merit. It is accordingly
ORDERED the Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate Judge
(docket no. 32) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED the Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (docket no. 29) is hereby
DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 28th day of December, 2015.

____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2