Steptoe v. Adams
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order of Dismissal - The Civil Rights Complaint filed by Pltf is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. (Ordered by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 6/17/2011) (plh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AMARILLO DIVISION
MONZELLE LAVAN STEPTOE, PRO SE,
also known as MONZELLE L. STEPTOE.
TDCJ-CID No.1622644,
Previous TDCJ-CID No. 891938.
$
$
$
$
$
Plaintiff,
$
s
$
V.
2:11-CV-0084
$
JOHN ADAMS, Warden,
Ms. NFN GRANT, Safety Offrcer, and
DEBORAH K. ALEMAN, P.A., Medical,
$
$
$
$
Defendant.
$
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff MONZELLE LAVAN STEPTOE, acting pro se and while a prisoner confined in
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, has filed suit
pursuant to Title 42,Ufiited States Code, section 1983 complaining against the above-referenced
defendant and has been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis.
Plaintiff initially filed suit naming Warden JOHN ADAMS
as the sole defendant.
On May 6,2011, a Report and Recommendation issued recommending that plaintiff
s
claims against defendant ADAMS be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to
state a claim on which relief can be granted. Plaintiff responded by
filing an Amended
Complaint in which he dropped all claims against defendant JOHN ADAMS and named two new
defendants, Ms. NFN GRANT and DEBORAH K.
ALEMAN.
Accordingly, defendant ADAMS was terminated and, on June 6,2011, the Court
withdrew the May 6,2011 Report and Recommendation and issued a Briefing Order and
Questionnaire.
By his Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges he was injured on December 23,2010, when
one wheel of the 8-10 foot food service hot box he was pulling
fell into a 3-5 inch hole in the
sidewalk at the Clements Unit, overturning the cart onto plaintiff and injuring his left knee, ankle
leg, and face. He says he was put on crutches for 3%to 4 weeks because of fluid on his knee
and collateral ligaments but was required to continue working in the kitchen.
By his Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges that, on December 24 tluough27,2010,
defendant GRANT, the Safety Officer, obtained a written statement from plaintiff about the
incident and stated the holes should have been fixed. Plaintiff contends this shows "they" were
fully aware such
a defect posed a high risk of
harm. By his "Declaration," filed
contemporaneously with his Questionnaire response, plaintiff states the unit's last safety
inspection before his injury was in OctoberA{ovember and the oosafety officers had already stated
they had already known of the holes, when they obtain[ed] plaintiffs [sic] incident report."
By his Questionnaire response, plaintiff states a work order was completed on December
23,2010, the morning of the accident and that Mr. Baker, of the Maintenance Department, was
the person who fixed the concrete.
By his Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges defendant P.A. DEBORAH ALEMAN
refused several requests by him to be placed on work restriction even though he informed her he
was being forced to work on wet floors for 4-6 hours while in
response,
pain. By his Questionnaire
plaintiff stated defendant ALEMAN responded to his request by saying that he would
be all
right and she would
see
him the next week. She said they wouldn't work him because he
was on crutches and that he needed to stand on
it a little and work it out.
Plaintiff says his injury did not heal properly and he has a pinched nerve from being
denied a work restriction.
Plaintiff requests nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages for $1,000,000.00, but
says he
will
settle the suit for $100,000.00.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
When a prisoner seeks redress from a govemmental entity or offtcer or employee of a
governmental entity, the Court must evaluate the complaint and dismiss it without service
process,
a
of
Ali v. Higgs,892F.2d438,440 (5th Cir. 1990), if it is frivolousr, malicious, fails to
state
claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915.{; 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). The same standards will
support dismissal of a suit brought under any federal law by a prisoner confined in any jail,
prison, or other correctional facility, where such suit concerns prison conditions. 42 U.S.C.
1997e(c)(1)
. A Spears hearing need not be conducted for
every
pro se complaint. Wilsonv.
Barrientos, 926 F.2d480, 483 n.4 (5th Cir. l99l)'z.
The District Judge has reviewed the facts alleged by plaintiff to determine if his claim
presents grounds for dismissal or should proceed to answer by defendants.
rA claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in facl, Booker v. Koonce,2 F.3d I 14, I l5 (5th Cir' 1993);
see,Dentonv. Hernandez,504U.S.25, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733, 118L.8d.2d340(1992).
2Cf, Green v. McKaskle,788 F.2d I I 16, I 120 (5th Cir. 1986) ("Of course, our discussion of Spears should not be
interpreted to mean that all or even most prisoner claims require or deserve aSpears hearing. A district court should be able to
dismiss as frivolous a significant number of prisoner suits on the complaint alone or the complaint together with the ll'atson
questionnaire. ").
4^t-0084.2
THE LAW AND ANALYSIS
To state an Eighth Amendment claim of cruel and unusual punishment, plaintiff must
allege facts showing the defendants acted with deliberate indifference, that is, with knowing
disregard to a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate. Green v. Atkinson, 623
F
.3d 278 (5'h
Cir. 2010) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,837,114 S.Ct. 1970, 1980,128L.8d.2d
811 (1994)). A prisoner asserting a claim that conditions of confinement constituted cruel and
unusual punishment must show deliberate indifference on the part of prison officials. Wilson
v.
Seiter,50l U.S. 294, ll I S.Ct. 2321, n5 L.Ed.2d2lI (1991). The appropriate definition of
"deliberate indifference" under the Eighth Amendment is "subjective recklessness as used in the
criminal law." Farmerv. Brennan,5Il U.S. 825,837,114 S.Ct. 1970, 1980, 128 L.Ed.2d
0999;
Reeves v.
811
Collins,2T F.3d.174 (sthCir.1994). In this regard the Supreme Court has
cautioned:
[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment . . . unless
the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety;
the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn
that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 837-38, 114 S.Ct. at 1979. It is only under exceptional
circumstances that a prison official's knowledge of a substantial risk of harm may be inferred by
the obviousness of the substantial risk.
Defendant GRANT
Plaintiff
s factual allegations concerning defendant
GRANT arc that, after his accident,
a
work order was written and sometime in the succeeding fow days, she took a statement from
plaintiff concerning the accident and stated the hole should have been fixed. Plaintiff concludes
4
GRANT's statement shows "they" were fully aware such a defect posed
Plaintiff also says safety officers inspected the unit only
a month or
stated they had already known of the hole when they obtained
a
high risk of harm.
two before the accident and
plaintiff
s
incident report.
Accepting the truth of plaintiff s allegations, GRANT's statement does not show that,
before plaintiff s accident, she knew the hole in the sidewalk presented a substantial risk to
inmate safety and ignored
it. At most, GRANT's
statement merely reflects her belief that
someone should have recognized such a danger and gotten the hole fixed before
plaintiff
s
accident. Even if defendant GRANT had been one of the safety officers who investigated the
unit in OctoberA.{ovember before plaintiff s accident and knew of the hole in the sidewalk then,
these facts would not be not sufficient to show she was responsible for the failure to
fix
the
sidewalk or ignored the need for repair.
Plaintiff s allegations in this respect may support
a
claim of negligence against an
unknown party who failed to make the repair; however, section 1983 is not a general tort statute,
and mere negligence does not meet the standard for
liability under section 1983. Daniels
v.
Williams,474 U.S. 327 ,331-34, 106 S.Ct. 662, 664-67 ,88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986)(inmate slipped
on
pillow left on stairs). The facts alleged by plaintiff fail to state a claim of deliberate
indifference by defendant GRANT.
Defendant ALEMAN
Plaintiff claims his leg has developed
a pinched nerve
from being denied a requested
work restriction by defendant ALEMAN. He says she responded to his request by assuring him
they wouldn't make him work because he was on crutches. Plaintiff says they did make him
work, on slippery floors, despite his being on crutches. Plaintiff appears to have told ALEMAN
4/tt-0084.2
of this fact and alleges she fuither stated, "[y]ou need to stand on it a little and work it out."
Plaintiff does not allege he fell at work or further injured his knee in any way.
While plaintiff provides no factual allegation to support his conclusion that the lack of
work restrictions, and not the original injury, caused him to develop a pinched nerye, even
accepting plaintiff s conclusion of causation, the facts presented show defendant ALEMAN did
not draw the necessary inference of substantial risk to plaintiff s health or safety, Instead, she felt
plaintiff needed to stand up on his leg and "work it out."
Whether or not this medical advice was eroneous is not an issue for the Court to resolve.
The facts presented by plaintiff do not show deliberate indifference to plaintiff s serious medical
need, but, instead, a disagreement with
plaintiff about what was needed to address his injury.
The facts alleged by plaintiff fail to state a claim of deliberate indifference by defendant
ALEMAN.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has had the opportunity to amend his complaint and has further enjoyed the
benefit of a Questionnaire designed to elicit the relevant facts. Plaintiff has also presented his
"Declaration." It appears plaintiff has stated his best
1054 (5th
case, Bazrowx v.
Scott, 136 F.3d 1053,
Cir. 1998), and there is no need for a further factual statement from plaintiff. Jacquez
v. Procunier, 801 F.2d789,792 (sth
Cir. 1986).
For the reasons set forth above and pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, sections
1915,{ and 1915(e)(2), as well as Title 42, United States Code, section 1997e(a), the Civil Rights
Complaint filed pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983, by plaintiff MONZELLE
4/tt-0084.2
LAVAN STEPTOE is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE To STATE A CLAIM
ON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to plaintiff and to any attorney of record. The
Clerk shall also mail copies of this order to TDCJ-Office of the General Counsel. P.O. Box
13084, Austin,
TX 78711; and to the Pro Se Clerk at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Tyler Division.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this
the /
,/rz,/
day of June ,2011.
MARY LOU RO
United States District Judse
4/lt-0084.2
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?