Robinson v. Stephens et al

Filing 18

ORDER of Partial Dismissal overruling pltf's objection and adopting 16 Report and Recommendation. Pltf may proceed with his deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Nurse Debbie Rinehart and Provider Sientz. Pltf's remaining claims are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 USC 1915A(b)(1). Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 10/25/16. (tkd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION

GREGORY ALLEN ROBINSON, #1924476

'

VS.

'

WILLIAM STEPHENS, ET AL.

'

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16cv485

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Gregory Allen Robinson, an inmate previously confined at the Gurney Unit of the
Texas prison system, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the above-styled and
numbered civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell, who issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #16)
for the disposition of the lawsuit. Mr. Robinson has filed objections (Dkt. #17).
Mr. Robinson complains about the medical care he received after he broke his ankle
playing basketball. United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell found that he had alleged
facts sufficient to proceed with his deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against
Nurse Debbie Rinehart and Provider Sientz. She found that the claims against former Director
William Stephens and the Gurney Unit should be dismissed.
In his objections, Mr. Robinson focuses on the problems he has experienced since breaking
his ankle. Magistrate Judge Mitchell noted the problems he has experienced in the Report and
Recommendation and found that he should be permitted to proceed with his medical claims
against people who are appropriate defendants in a civil rights lawsuit.
1

Mr. Robinson’s objections do not, however, address the reasons provided by Magistrate
Judge Mitchell for recommending the dismissal of former Director Stephens and the Gurney Unit.
Nonetheless, Magistrate Judge Mitchell correctly explained that the United States Supreme Court
has held that the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply in § 1983 actions. Monell v.
Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 2036 (1978). Moreover, the term
supervisory liability in the context of a § 1983 lawsuit is a “misnomer” since “[e]ach Government
official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only liable for his or her own misconduct.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). A supervisor may be held liable only if
one of the following exists: (1) his personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2)
sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional
violations. Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303-304 (5th Cir. 1987). Mr. Robinson has not
alleged facts showing that former Director William Stephens was personally involved in this
matter or that there was a causal connection between his wrongful conduct and a constitutional
violation. The claims against him should be dismissed.
The final defendant is the Gurney Unit. In a civil rights lawsuit filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must sue a person who, under color of law, subjects a citizen to
deprivation of his federal rights. “The elements of a § 1983 action are: (1) a deprivation of rights
secured by the constitution, (2) by a person acting under color of state law.” Evans v. City of
Marlin, Tex., 986 F.2d 104, 107 (5th Cir. 1993). The Gurney Unit is not a person. The Fifth
Circuit has found that neither states nor state agencies are “persons” within the meaning of § 1983.
Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1137 (5th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042, 103 S. Ct. 1438
2

(1983). Federal claims against the prison must be dismissed. Loya v. Texas Dept. of Corrections,
878 F.2d 860, 861-62 (5th Cir. 1989) (citing Ruiz, 679 F.2d at 1137). Mr. Robinson has pled no
State claim against the prison. He may pursue his federal claims against the proper defendants, but
Director Stephens and the Gurney Unit are not proper defendants. The claims against them fail to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted and are frivolous in that they lack any basis in law
and fact; thus, the claims against them should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
The Report of the Magistrate Judge, which contains her proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for the disposition of such action, has been presented for consideration, and
having made a de novo review of the objections raised by Mr. Robinson to the Report, the court is
of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and Mr.
Robinson’s objections are without merit. Therefore the court adopts the findings and conclusions
of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the court. It is accordingly
ORDERED that Mr. Robinson may proceed with his deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs claim against Nurse Debbie Rinehart and Provider Sientz. It is finally
ORDERED that Mr. Robinson’s remaining claims are DISMISSED with prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 25 day of October, 2016.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

3