Glass v. MHMR Tarrant County Jail
Filing
6
Memorandum Opinion and Order...all claims by palintiff Glass against deft MHMR Tarrant Co Jail are dismissed pursuant to 28 USC 1915A(b). cy to EDTX (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 9/30/2014) (wrb)
I
i
.
r ''
v .
'
.
,
t- oï l l lcotlrs. s-x c'
) fxr
NORTI ERN pl rul r oj Tsxas
.
I
s. c. r
.'
'
..'.. , ... .
'
.
.. .
.
r
'.
.
.
j .
( ?1
IN THE UNITED ST TES DISTRICT C U:: '
NO T R DI T C OF T X
R HB N
RI T
E AS kt .
; '
.
.
.
FjLEP
.
rs
s pavaj
j
.
.
FORT WOR H DIVISION
CLERK U. m s y j jcorjy
s. l t c'
l,
f . By
.
' ,
;.
EDWARD BENTON GLASS ,
5
5
5
5
Plaintiff ,
VS .
MHMR TARRANT COUNTY JAIL DIV .,
Defendant .
5
5
5
5
5
XO '
PQI
Y
- -
NO . 4 :14 -CV -701-A
MEMOM N UM OPINION
nd
O DER
Now before the court for c nsideration is a complaint filed
in the above action by plaintiff, Edward Benton Glass, naming as
defendant MHMR Tarrant County Jail Division x
Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Tarrant County Jail. As a
prisoner seeking redress from g vernment officials, plaintiff'
s
complaint is subject to prelimi ary screening under 28 U. C. ï
S.
1915A . See Martin v . Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (
5th Cir.
1998). Section l9l5A ( l) pro ides for sua sponte dismissal if
b)(
the court finds that the complaint is either frivolous or fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A claim is
frivolous if it 'lacks an argua le basis in either fact or law .'
'
l t
Alhough t cour i unf ii wih an ntt na ed 'M I M R Tar a Count Jai Di si 'i
he
t s am lar t
iy m ' I
r nt
y l vi on,'t
i lkel t t si nota pr
s i y hat hi s
operdef ndant Beca e t cour concl
e
.
u he
t
udest tpl ntf hasf ld t s a e
ha ai if
aie o t t
any cl m ,a det m i i oft pr rdef
ai
er naton he ope endan i unnecess r
s
a y.
j
5
w t
i
!
Neitzke v . Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (
1989). A complaint fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted when, assuming
that all the allegations in the complaint are true even if
doubtful in fact, such allegati ns fail to raise a right to
relief above the speculative le el . Bell Atl . Corp . v . Twombly ,
550 U . 544, 555 (
S.
2007).
In evaluating whether the
omplaint states a valid claim for
relief, the court construes the allegations of the complaint
favorably to the pleader . Wart
v . Seldin , 422 U . . 490, 50l
S
(
1975). However, the court doe not accept conclusory
allegations or unwarranted dedu tions of fact as true, and a
plaintiff must provide more tha
labels and conclusions or a
formulaic recitation of the ele ents of a cause of action.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Tuchm n v . DSC Comyc' Cor ., 14 F.3d
ns
1061, 1067 (
5th Cir. 1994).
Having now considered the
court concludes that it should
llegations in the complaint, the
e dismissed in its entirety under
the provisions of 28 U . . . 5 1 15A .
S C
In the complaint , plaintif
one mental health doctor in fiv
alleged that he has only seen
months. The doctor only ordered
plaintiff a prescription medica ion for '
'
mild anxiety .' Compl .
'
at 4. Plaintiff alleged that h has 'PTSD, psycosis (
'
sic), major
anxiety disorder, bipolar, majo depression, panic attacks, and a
2
I
recurring nightmare ,' id w but is not being treated for those
'
conditions .
Plaintiff appears to be a serting a claim for deliberate
indifference to his medical ne ds under 42 U . C. 5 1983.
S.
The
'unnecessary and wanton inflic ion of pain . . . constitutes
'
cruel and unusual punishment f rbidden by the Eighth Amendment .'
'
Hudson v . McMillian, 503 U .
S. , 5 (
1992) (
ellipses in
originalll
internal citation an
quotation marks omitted). The
Supreme Court has determ ined t at deliberate indifference to a
prisoner ' serious medical nee s may constitute the 'unnecessary
s
'
and wanton infliction of pain ' necessary to state an Eighth
'
Amendment violation . Estelle
. Gae le , 429 U . . 97, l04 (
S
1976).
However, not every claim by a
risoner that he received
inadequate medical care states a constitutional violation . Id.
at 104-105 .
For a prison official 's deliberate indifference to a
prisoner ' serious medical nee s to rise to the level of a
s
constitutional violation, a prisoner must establish that the
official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to a
prisoner 's health or safety . Farmer v . Brennan , 511 U . . 825 ,
S
837 (
1994) . ' E he official must b0th be aware of facts from
' T)
which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of
serious harm exists , and he must also draw the inference .' Id .
'
a
An official' 'failure to alle iate a significant risk that he
s '
should have perceived but did
ot' does not constitute an Eighth
'
Amendment violation. Id . at 838. Unsuccessful medical care,
negligent treatment , or medica
malpractice do not rise to the
level of a constitutional tort . Gobert v . Caldwell, 463 F .3d
339, 346 (
5th Cir. 2006). Dis greement between a prisoner and
his doctor regarding the cours
of treatment is generally not
actionable. Banuelos v . McFar and, 41 F . 232, 235 (
3d
5th Cir.
1995) (
per curiam). ïDelibera e indifference is an extremely
'
high standard to meet.' Gobert, 463 F.3d at 346 (
'
internal
quotation marks and citation o itted).
The allegations of the co plaint fail to meet this high
standard . The essence of plai tiff ' complaint is that although
s
plaintiff is receiving treatme t for mental health issues, he
believes he needs more or diff rent medical treatment than what
is being provided . These type of allegations amount to a
disagreement with the medical treatment provided, 'contentions
that fall short of a constitutional or federal claim .' Varnado
'
v . Lvnauqh, 920 F. 320, 32l (
2d
5th Cir. 1991) (
per curiam).
The complaint is also notable for what is lacking . For
example, plaintiff does not allege that he complained to anyone
about the medical treatment he has received , or that he suffered
4
or suffers from symptoms that
emained untreated,z or that he has
asked or attempted to see a ph sician but has been refused. No
facts are alleged to show any
f defendant 's employees were aware
of facts from which they could draw the inference that a
substantial risk of serious ha m to plaintiff existed, or that
any officials drew such an inf rence . To prevail on his claim
also requires plaintiff to sho
that defendant's deliberate
indifference resulted in 'subs antial harm.' Mendoza v . Lynauqh,
'
'
989 F . 191, 195 (
2d
5th Cir. 19 3). However, no facts are alleged
to indicate that plaintiff has suffered in any way from any
perceived lack of medical care . Under the circumstances
described in the complaint, pl intiff cannot establish that
defendant was deliberately ind '
fferent to his medical needs .
3
To sum up the court's con lusions, plaintiff has failed to
allege any facts as would show defendant refused to treat him ,
ignored his complaints, or int ntionally treated him incorrectly .
The complaint fails to meet th
'high standardp required to show
'
defendant was deliberately ind '
fferent to plaintiff' medical
s
needs. Plaintiff has thus fai ed to allege a violation of his
z t
Alhough t com pl nti uded a ls o dignos pl ntf cont
he
ai ncl
it
a es ai if
endshehasbeen gi n, t e
ve her
ar no f saleged t s t pl ntf s f s om any s pt sr at t t di
e act l
o how hat ai if ufer
ym om el ed o he agnoses
.
3tappear lkel t tt pr
I
s i y ha he operdef n i t sac i i eiherTarantCount oranot r
enda n hi ton s t
r
y
he
gove nment entt To t e e ,pl ntf has lo f l t alegeany f t asw oul esabls
r
al iy.
hat xt nt ai if
s aied o l
ac s
d t ih
la lt f a y g e nme t l ntt Se , g, tows v. ofHou t n, F.d 5 ,5 ( t
ibiiy or n ov r n a e iy. e e..Pi r ki Ci
so 237 3 67 78 5h
Ci. 01;Be ne t Civo Sldel 7 F. 8 ,8 2 ( t Ci.1 84 ( rc im)
r 20 ) n t v. t f i l, 35 2d 61 6 5h r 9 ) pe ura .
5
constitutional rights.
Therefore,
The court ORDERS that a1l claims and causes of action
asserted in the above-captione
action by plaintiff, Edward
Benton Glass, against defendan , MHMR Tarrant County Jail
Division, be, and are hereby,
ismissed pursuant to the authority
of 28 U.S. 1915A (
C.
b).
.
..
S IGNED September 2 9 , 2 014 .
/
'
z
'
''
.
,.
,,
.,
#.
*
,
r'
'
.
.
'.
,
.
.. z
e
-
,
<.
e
f
'
'
.
àYD /
'
,'
. Z'
' Z
r
'
'
,r.
z
'
.z
..
.
.,
..
z
,
/
z
z
.'
,
,,
d'
z
.
e
.s.
z,.
'
.'
zs
Z
Z nite àtates Dist ct Judge
z.
'
,
?
,
/
/
J
g
'
;
.
'
k/
?
.'
6
.
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?