Oppelt v. Doe et al
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT: The Court ORDERS Plaintiff's Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. (Ordered by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk on 2/28/2022) (awc)
Case 2:19-cv-00127-Z-BR Document 25 Filed 02/28/22
Page 1 of 5 PageID 77
, . ,o.~. DISTRICT CO[JRT
NOR I I 11:RN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AMARILLO DIVISION
BILLY BOB OPPELT,
TDCJ-CID No. 01928558,
[ FEB 28 2022
I
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
By"#fb~::;:;----r111y
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
§
V.
2:19-CV-127-Z-BR
§
§
§
§
JOHN DOE, I et al.,
Defendants.
.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DISMISSING CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
Before the Court is Plaintiffs civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against the above-referenced Defendants (ECF No. 1) ("Complaint"), filed January 31, 2019.
Plaintiff filed suit prose while incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ("TDCJ"),
Correctional Institutions Division. Plaintiff was granted permission to proceed informa pauperis.
The Court ordered authenticated records concerning Plaintiff's claims. ECF No. 13. Additionally,
Plaintiff completed a Watson Briefing Order Questionnaire. ECF No. 15. For the reasons discussed
herein, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint is WITH PREJUDICE.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that on August 10, 2017, a Lieutenant and Major ("Defendant Does")
pepper-sprayed him at the Baten ISF transfer facility. Id. at 1. Plaintiff claims he had difficulty
breathing and was attempting to initiate a sick call when the incident occurred. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff
also alleges he was not allowed to decontaminate or shower after he was pepper sprayed. Id. at 3.
Case 2:19-cv-00127-Z-BR Document 25 Filed 02/28/22
Page 2 of 5 PageID 78
LEGAL STANDARD
When a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility brings an action
with respect to prison conditions under any federal law, the Court may evaluate the complaint and
dismiss it without service of process, Ali v. Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 1990), if it is
frivolous, 1 malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 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)(l). A Spears hearing need not be conducted for every prose
complaint. Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480,483 n.4 (5th Cir. 1991).2
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff provides few facts concerning the use of chemical agents. However, the Court has
obtained authenticated records from TDCJ. The authenticated records reveal Plaintiff refused
commands to perform a strip search and be secured for transport. Prison staff deployed chemical
agents to secure compliance only after verbal intervention failed. Additionally, the authenticated
records indicate copious amounts of water were used to decontaminate Plaintiff following the
usage of chemical agents, through in-cell decontamination. Plaintiff was seen by a licensed
vocational nurse following deployment of the chemical agents. All force was recorded with video
1
A claim is frivolous ifit lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114, 115 (5th Cir. 1993).
Green vs. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1120 (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 a Spears 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 Watson questionnaire."). Dismissals may also be based on adequately identified or authenticated records.
Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232,234 (5th Cir. 1995).
2
2
Case 2:19-cv-00127-Z-BR Document 25 Filed 02/28/22
Page 3 of 5 PageID 79
contained in the authenticated records. The authenticated records and video evidence do not
support Plaintiff's claims.
In addressing an excessive force claim brought under Section 1983, analysis begins by
identifying the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed by the challenged application of
force. Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 140 (1979) ("The first inquiry in any§ 1983 suit" is "to
isolate the precise constitutional violation with which [the defendant] is charged."). In most
instances, that will be either the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures of
the person or the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Those are the two
primary sources of constitutional protection against physically abusive governmental conduct.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394 (1989). The validity of the claim must then be judged by
reference to the specific constitutional standard that governs that right, rather than to some
generalized "excessive force" standard. Id.; see also generally Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1
(1985) (excessive force claim to effect arrest analyzed under Fourth Amendment standard);
Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986) (excessive force claim to subdue convicted prisoner
analyzed under Eighth Amendment standard).
Prison staff cannot cause the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Whitley, 475 U.S.
at 320. The "core judicial inquiry" into a plaintiff's claim of excessive force under the Eighth
Amendment is "whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline,
or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm." Martin v. Seal, 510 F. App'x 309, 312 (5th Cir.
2013) (quoting Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992)). The inquiry has two components: (1)
an objective component focusing on whether the alleged wrongdoing was non-trivial and harmful
enough to violate the constitution; and (2) a subjective component focusing on the mental state of
3
Case 2:19-cv-00127-Z-BR Document 25 Filed 02/28/22
Page 4 of 5 PageID 80
the alleged wrongdoer. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7-8. Courts examines five non-exclusive factors to
make this determination:
1. the extent of the injury suffered;
2. the need for the application of force;
3. the relationship between this need and the amount of force used;
4. the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials; and
5. any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.
Baldwin v. Stalder, 137 F.3d 836, 839 (5th Cir. 1998). Courts can consider these factors in any
order. Id. "Excessive force claims are necessarily fact-intensive; whether the force used is
'excessive' or 'unreasonable' depends on 'the facts and circumstances of each particular case."'
Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156, 167 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S.
386,396 (1989)).
Based on the authenticated records, combined with the minimal statements made by
Plaintiff in both the Complaint and the Briefing Order Questionnaire regarding the need for force
or his claim regarding decontamination and medical care, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSE~ Plaintiffs
Complaint WITH PREJUDICE.
4
Case 2:19-cv-00127-Z-BR Document 25 Filed 02/28/22
Page 5 of 5 PageID 81
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2) and 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a), the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous.
SO ORDERED.
February~. 2022
.
SMARYK
ATES DISTRJCT JUDGE
5
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?