Longoria v. Dallas Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 8

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Plaintiff's complaint should be summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). See order for specific. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan on 11/9/09) (jrb)

TNTHE LINITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT N O R T H E R NDISTRICTOF TEXAS D A L L A S DIVISION P E T ELONGORIA Plaintifl
VS. D A L L A S COUNTY SHERIFF'S D E P A R T M E N T , ET AL. Defendants. F I N D I N G S AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE U N I T E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This casehas been referred to the United Statesmagistratejudge for pretrial management from the district court. The findings orderof reference p u r s u a n t 28 U.S.C. $ 636(b)anda standing to judge are as follow: a n d recommendation the magistrate of I. againstthe T h i s is a pro se civil rights action broughtby PeteLongoria,a pretrial detainee, Detention," entitiesidentified as "Dallas Sheriffs Department D a l l a s County Sheriffs Department, " P a r k l a n dJail Health," and "Lew SterrettNorth Tower DetentionCenter,"and two jail employees. On September10, 2009,plaintiff tendereda form civil rights complaint to the district clerk and filed the a n applicationto proceedinforma pauperis. Because information provided by plaintiff in his pauper'saffidavit indicatesthat he lacks the funds necessary prosecutethis case,the court granted to l e a v e to proceedin forma pauperis and allowed the complaint to be filed. The court then sent w r i t t e n interrogatories plaintiff in order to obtain additionalinformation aboutthe factual basis to the on o f his suit. Plaintiff answered interrogatories October22,2009. The court now determines t h a t this caseshouldbe summarilvdismissed.

N O . 3-09-CV-1684-0

II. in O n April 27,2009, while incarcerated the Dallas County Jail, plaintiff injured his back w h e n he slipped on rainwater that had seepedinto his cell through a broken window. (SeePlf. Lopez was the first detentionofficer to respond C o m p l . at 4, ']}V; Mag. J. Interrog.#6). Sergeant t o the incident. Although Lopez immediately called an ambulance,plaintiff alleges that Lopez v i o l a t e d his constitutionalrights: (1) bV failing to provide plaintiff with dry clothes,a blanket,and towels; (2) by not checking on plaintiffs back injury after he returnedfrom the hospital; and (3) by n o t reporting the water leak in his cell to the Texas Commissionon Jail Standards.(SeeMag. J. I n t e r r o g . #2 & 3). Plaintiff further allegesthat a jail physician,Dr. AzeemMuhammad,did not provide him with adequate medical care for his back injury. (Seeid. #l & 4). By this suit, plaintiff and injunctive relief. s e e k sunspecifiedmoney damages A. A district court may summarilydismissa complaint filed infurma psuperis if it concludes t h a t the action:

(l) (2) (3)

i s frivolous or malicious; f a i l s to statea claim on which relief may be granted;or who is immunefrom relief against defendant a seeks monetary s u c hrelief.

maybegranted,plaintiffmustplead Tostateaclaimuponwhichrelief 2 8 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2XB). $ BellAtlanticCorp.v. Twombly, on a factsto state claimto reliefthatis plausible its face," "enough (2007), mustplead those facts with and L.8d.2d929 S.Ct.1955,1974,167 5 5 0U.S. 544,570,127 at level."Id., 127S.Ct. 1965."A the specificity raise rightto reliefabove speculative a enough "to factual content allowsthe courtto draw that whentheplaintiffpleads c l a i mhasfacialplausibility

is inferencethat the defendant liable for the misconductalleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the reasonable _ U.S._,129 S.Ct. 1937,1949,173L.Ed.2d868 (2009). While a complaintneednot contain

the d e t a i l e dfactual allegations, plaintiff must allegemore than labelsand conclusions. Twombly, 1 2 7 S.Ct.at 1964-65. The court must acceptall well-pleadedfactsas true and view the allegations Litig.,495 F.3d 191, i n the light most favorableto the plaintiff. SeeIn re Katrina Canal Breaches 2 0 5 (5th Cir.2007),cert. deniedsub nom.,Xavier Univ. of Louisianav. TravelersCas PropertyCo. o f America, 128 S.Ct. 1230(2008). B. T h e court initially observesthat plaintiff has failed to statea claim for relief against the Dallas Sheriffs DepartmentDetention,ParklandJail Health, D a l l a s County Sheriffs Department, a n d Lew SterrettNorth Tower DetentionCenter. "Federalcourtsin Texashaveuniformly held that jural existence not subjectto suit." Torti v. Hughes,No. 3-07-CVare e n t i t i e swithout a separate 1 4 7 6 - M , 2 0 0 7 WL 4403983 at *2 Qrl.D.Tex. Dec. 17, 2AAT (citing cases). None of these defendantsare separatelegal entities having jural authority. See,e.g. Champion v. Parkland Jail Tex. Jul. 2,2009) (neitherDallas at H e a l t h , No. 3-09-CV-0689-M 2009 WL 1904816 *2 Q.{.D. , County Sheriffs Department nor Parkland Jail Health is a proper defendantwith jural existence); *3 WL Searcyv. Cooper,No.3-01-CV-01l2-D,2001 435071at (N.D.Tex.Apr.20,2001),appeal d i s m ' d , No, 02-ll03l (5th Cir. Nov. 18,2002) (same as to Lew Sterrett Justice Center).

Consequently,plaintiffs claims againstthesedefendantsshould be dismissed. C. Lopez and namedin his complaint,Sergeant P l a i n t i f f s claims againstthe other defendants Dr. Muhammad, are governedby the due processclause of the FourteenthAmendment. The due

processclauserequiresthe stateto provide for the "basichuman needs"of pretrial detainees.,See H a r e v. City of Corinth,T4 F.3d 633, 639-40(5th Cir. 1996). This includesthe right to "adequate f o o d , clothing, shelterand medical care[.]" Id. at 648,quoting Farmer v. Brennan,5l I U.S, 825, violation, a 128L.Ed.2d811 (1994), In orderto establish constitutional 8 3 2 , I l4 S.Ct. 1970,1976, a detaineemust show that the defendantacted with deliberate indifference to a serious condition. was subjectivelyawareof a substantial I d . at647-48. This, in turn, requiresproof that the defendant measures abatethat risk. Id. at 648, citing to r i s k of seriousharm and failed to take reasonable is standardto meet."Domino indifference anextremelyhigh F a r m e r , l l4 S.Ct.at1984."Deliberate v . TexasDep't of Criminal Justice,239F.3d 752,756 (5th Cir. 2001). In the contextof a medical c a r e claim, a pretrial detaineemust show that the defendant"refusedto treat him, ignored his c o m p l a i n t s , intentionally treatedhim incorrectly, or engagedin any similar conduct that would for c l e a r l y evincea wantondisregard any seriousmedicalneeds."Johnsonv. Treen,759F.2d 1236, 1 2 3 8(5th Cir. 1985). A delayin providing medicalcaredoesnot rise to the level of a constitutional v. harm. SeeMendoza Lynaugh,989F.2d l9l, 195 the v i o l a t i o nunless delayresultsin substantial over the proper courseof ( 5 t h Cir, 1993). Nor doesan incorrectdiagnosisor a mere disagreement m e d i c a l treatment constitute deliberateindifference. See Domino,239 F.3d at 756; Norton v. D i m o z a n a ,l22F.3d286,292 (5th Cir. 1997). l. Lopez for leaving him in wet clothesfrom 9: l5 a.m. until 6:45 P l a i n t i f f criticizes Sergeant p . m . on the day of the incident,and for not providing him with a dry blanket and towels. Even if L o p e z actedwith deliberateindifference,plaintilf has not allegedany facts to indicatethat these harm. See,e.g.Hamdan v. Copes,No. 05him to a seriousrisk of substantial c o n d i t i o n ssubjected v. 1 2 9 3 - L , 2 0 0 6WL 1831532at *4, l0- I I (W.D. La. May 19,2006),quoting Woods Edwards,5l

F.3d577,581(5thCir. 1995)(prisonerwhoallegedthatmattressandblanketbecamewetfromleaky that conditions t o i l e t and that he was forcedto wear the sameclothesfor l9 davsfailed to establish Harcis v. Hulkffi of w e r e "so seriousasto deprive[him] ofthe minimal measure life's necessities"); as No.2-05-CV-198, 2007WL2479467 at*3-4 (W.D.Mich. Aug.28,2007)(same to allegation t h a t prisonerwas left without blanketsin a cold cell for 52 hours). N o r canplaintiff sueLopezfor not checkingon his back conditionand for not reportingthe water leak in his cell to the TexasCommission on Jail Standards.No facts areallegedto suggest that L o p e z was subjectivelyawareof any risk of harm to plaintiff after he retumed from the hospital. L i k e w i s e , the failure to reportthe incidentto stateregulatoryauthoritiesdid not depriveplaintiff of a basichuman need. This claim shouldbe summarilvdismissed. -. to T h e court reaches sameconclusionwith respect plaintiffs medicalcareclaim against the that he saw the doctor at least Dr. Muhammad. In his interrogatoryanswers,plaintiff acknowledges 28,2009. (SeeMag. J. Interrog.#4). Plaintiff also f i v e times betweenMay 1, 2009 and September a d m i t s that he had an MRI exam and was prescribedmedication for back pain. (See id. #l). A l t h o u g h plaintiff complainsthat he was not referredto a back specialistand generallyallegesthat his D r . Muhammad neverproperly evaluated injury, $ee id. at 1 & 4), this is nothing more than a d i s a g r e e m e nover the courseof medical treatmentthat is not actionableunder 42 U.S.C. $ 1983. t S e eGravesv. Hampton,I F.3d 315,3 19-20(5th Cir. 1993);llilliams v. Dallas County,No. 3-01adopted,2003WL22359487 C V - 0 4 0 0 - D , 2 0 0 3WL21662823 at*5 Of .D. Tex. Jul. 14,2003),rec. ( N . D . Tex. Sept.9,2003). RECOMMENDATION pursuantto 28 U.S.C, $ 1915(eX2). P l a i n t i f f s complaint shouldbe summarilydismissed

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendationmust file s p e c i f i c w r i t t e n o b j e c t i o n s w i t h i n l 0 d a y s a f t e r b e i n g s e r v e d w i t h a cSee28U.S.C.$636(bXl); opy. F p o . R. Crv. P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identifr the specific finding or r e c o m m e n d a t i o n which objectionis made,statethe basisfor the objection,and specifuthe place to judge'sreportandrecommendation is wherethe disputeddetermination found. An i n the magistrate objection that merely incorporatesby referenceor refers to the briefing before the magistratejudge party from appealing i s not specific. Failureto file specificwritten objectionswill barthe aggrieved judge that areaccepted adopted the by or of t h e factualfindings and legalconclusions the magistrate AutomobileAss'n, Douglassv. UnitedServices d i s t r i c t court,exceptupongroundsofplain error. See 7 9 F . 3 d 1 4 1 5 ,l 4 l 7 ( s t h C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) .

9, D A T E D : November 2009.

S T A T E SMAGISTRATN JUDCH