Jimenez v. Wynne et al
MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING 27 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 3/7/18. (ljw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHARON WYNNE, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:16-CV-2
MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Michael Jimenez, an inmate confined at the Gib Lewis Unit with the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Sharon
Wynne, Terrance Shaw, and Phillip Whigham.
The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Keith Giblin United States Magistrate Judge,
at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. The
Magistrate Judge recommends the 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants Shaw and
Whigham be denied.
The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record, and pleadings. Defendants filed
objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. This requires a
de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and applicable law. See FED. R. CIV.
After careful consideration, the Court finds defendants’ objections lacking in merit. The
Magistrate Judge correctly noted that a court must accept “all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing
them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Sonnier v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins., Co., 509
F.3d 673, 675 (5th Cir. 2007); see also Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 91 (2007) (on a “motion
to dismiss, a judge must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint”).
The Supreme Court in Erickson criticized the lower court’s departure from the liberal pleading
standards that must be accorded pro se prisoners. Id. Furthermore, when a qualified immunity
defense is asserted in an answer or motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the district court
must, as always, do no more than determine whether the plaintiff has filed a short and plain
statement of his complaint, a statement that rests on more than conclusions alone; in so doing, the
district court must apply the “short and plain” standard to the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2),
12(b)(6). Anderson v. Valdez, 845 F.3d 580 (5th Cir. 2016).
In their objections, the defendants appropriately note problems in plaintiff’s pleadings;
nonetheless, accepting all of the plaintiff’s factual allegations as true, plaintiff has alleged facts
sufficient to state a deliberate indifference claim. The motion to dismiss should be denied.
Defendants may be able to show on summary judgment that the case should be dismissed, but
plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to avoid dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Accordingly, petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED.
The findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the report of the Magistrate Judge is
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 7 day of March, 2018.
Ron Clark, United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?