Montez v. Hampton et al

Filing 78

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Montez is AWARDED $150.00 in nominal damages from Hampton. Montez is AWARDED $350.00 in punitive damages from Hampton. All other relief is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Nancy F. Atlas) Parties notified.(gkelner, 4)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DEREK MONTEZ,
TDCJ-CID # 1434316,
Plaintiff,
v.
CODY HAMPTON,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-11-1891

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The Court previously ordered a default judgment against defendant Cody
Hampton who failed to respond to the Court’s order after being served [Doc. #73].
At that time, the Court had not ordered damages because no declaration had been
received from plaintiff Derek Montez despite the Court’s orders to do so within 30
days. Subsequently, a declaration was filed which was dated November 22, 2013
[Doc. 77, p. 23]. Montez’s response is timely because he is incarcerated and must rely
on prison authorities to deliver his pleadings for mailing. Cooper v. Brookshire, 70
F.3d 377, 379 (5th Cir. 1995) (prisoner’s pro se pleading is deemed filed on the date
that it was deposited in the prison mail system) (citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266,
268-69 (1988)). See also Spotville v. Cain, 149 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 1998). Having
reviewed the unchallenged declaration, the Court has determined the damages that
shall be awarded to Montez as explained below.

I.

MONTEZ’S DECLARATION
The Court ordered Montez to submit a declaration of damages with supporting

documentation and affidavits. Montez, who is proceeding without counsel, has
presented a handwritten but effective account of Hampton’s actions. There are three
incidents asserted in which Hampton retaliates against Montez by harassing him and
subjecting him to unwarranted disciplinary actions. Despite his limited resources,
Montez has also managed to support his assertions with two witness statements from
other prisoners. The following is a summary of the incidents:
Montez states that the first incident happened when Hampton falsely accused
him of a disciplinary infraction after he attempted to report Hampton’s unprofessional
conduct to a supervising officer on October 14, 2009 [Doc. #77, p.1]. In doing so,
Hampton deliberately jerked Montez’s arms behind him causing Montez great pain
while handcuffing him. Hampton then placed Montez in a rat infested pre-hearing
detention cell with a broken toilet where he was held eight days. Id. at 2. Although
he was found guilty at a prison disciplinary hearing, Montez appealed the decision
claiming that Hampton had fabricated the charges and was harassing him in retaliation
for a grievance that Montez had filed against him. Id. at 3. Another inmate submitted
a statement verifying Montez’s account. Id. at 9.
Hampton retaliated Montez for a second time on December 3, 2009. Montez
2

reports that Hampton ordered him to leave the showers and demanded than Montez
produce his identification card [Doc. # 77, p. 3]. Hampton waived a pair of handcuffs
in Montez’s face and attempted to provoke a fight. Hampton’s threats and harassment
were made in response to a grievance that Montez had filed against him, and put
Montez in fear of his life and safety. This incident was also witnessed by another
inmate. Id. at 9.
The third incident occurred on January 18, 2010, when Hampton appeared at
Montez’s cell and threatened to pepper spray Montez for reporting his misconduct.
Id. at 4. When Montez requested to see Hampton’s supervisor, Hampton allowed
Montez’s cell mate to leave but blocked Montez’s egress and locked him in his cell.
Hampton later brought back a building lieutenant who listened to Montez’s complaint
about Hampton’s behavior; however, Montez was subsequently disciplined based on
Hampton’s false charges which were filed in retaliation for Montez’s complaints.
Another inmate submitted a written statement supporting Montez’s allegations
regarding the January 18 incident. Id. at 20.
III.

ANALYSIS
Montez has presented unrefuted evidence that Hampton repeatedly has

harassed, abused, and intimidated him for filing complaints about Hampton’s
behavior. Consequently, Montez has established that Hampton has violated his
3

constitutional rights by subjecting him to retaliation. Morris v. Powell, 449 F.3d 682,
684 (5th Cir. 2006).
Montez seeks $75,000 in compensatory damages from Hampton [Doc. # 77,
p.1]. Montez is a prisoner and cannot recover compensatory damages absent a
showing of physical injury. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir.2005);
Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 326 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e)).
Montez has failed to allege or demonstrate any actionable physical injury. See
Williams v. Bramer, 180 F.3d 699 (5th Cir. 1999); Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191,
193 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (e)).
Although Montez is barred from compensatory damages, he may still be
entitled to nominal and punitive damages. Hutchins v. McDaniels, 512 F.3d 193, 197
-198 (5th Cir. 2007); Williams v. Kaufman County, 352 F.3d 994, 1015 (5th Cir. 2003)
(citing Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978)). In light of Hampton’s abusive conduct
which violated Montez’s constitutional rights, the Court ORDERS the following:
1.

Montez is AWARDED $150.00 in nominal damages from Hampton.

2.

Montez is AWARDED $350.00 in punitive damages from Hampton.

3.

All other relief is DENIED.

4.

The Court will enter a separate final judgment.

The Clerk is ORDERED to send copies of this Order to the parties and to send
4

a copy to the United States Marshal. It is further
ORDERED that the Marshal shall serve a copy of this Order on Cody Hampton
at one of the addresses listed in the sealed order [Doc. # 65].
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 6th day of December, 2013.

5