Guzman v. Vatani et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER [(Signed by Judge Nancy F. Atlas) Parties notified.(sashabranner, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TRINIDAD GUZMAN, JR.,
LISA VATANI, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-12-2031
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
State inmate Trinidad Guzman, Jr. (TDCJ #1077205) has filed a pro se
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his civil rights in connection
with the conditions of his confinement at the Wallace Pack Unit of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice (collectively “TDCJ”) where he presently resides.
Doc. # 1. Guzman complains that he was denied adequate medical care and that he
was assigned work beyond his physical capacity by Lisa Vatani, P.A. (Physician’s
Assistant); Valeri Sterner, P.A; Dr. Fausto Avila, M.D.; and Warden Carey Staples.
The Court screened the pleadings, including the plaintiff’s more definite
statement, and ordered the defendants to file an answer. P.A. Sterner and Dr. Avila
have filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by records, contending that the
action should be dismissed because Guzman failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
Doc. # 26. Guzman has not filed a response. After reviewing all of the pleadings, the
full record in the case, and applicable law, the Court concludes that Sterner’s and
Avila’s motion must be granted and that this case must be dismissed in its entirety for
the reasons that follow.1
Guzman states that he was diagnosed with chronic lumbar decompression
while he was at the TDCJ Galveston Hospital in 2009. Doc. # 8, p. 11. He asserts
that he was seen by a doctor at the TDCJ Spine Clinic who prescribed him Naproxen,
medical boots, a medical mattress, and a cushion in November of 2011. Id. at 1-2.
The doctor also ordered a follow-up appointment in six weeks and physical therapy
for lumbar strengthening and no work assignments. Id. Guzman complains that
Vatani denied him the medical boots, medical mattress, and medical cushion after he
returned to the Pack Unit on November 17, 2011. Id.
Guzman alleges that Warden Staples violated his work restrictions by assigning
him to a job that entailed lifting articles in excess of fifteen pounds. Id. at 3. He also
names Sterner and Dr. Avila as defendants although he does not make any specific
In considering the motion for summary judgment, the Court addresses the
arguments and supporting evidence with regard to Guzman’s claims against Vatani
and Staples, the non-moving Defendants, as well as Sterner and Avila.
allegations as to their personal involvement. Id. He alleges that he re-injured himself
as a result of the defendants’ acts and that he has had to use crutches as a result of the
Guzman seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and
compensation. Doc. # 1, p. 5.
Failure to Exhaust 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)
The defendants argue that Guzman failed to exhaust available administrative
remedies against Sterner and Dr. Avila. In support of their argument, they present a
Step 1 Grievance filed by Guzman dated as received by the TDCJ administration on
March 29, 2010, and a Step 2 Grievance signed by Guzman on May 21, 2010, and
dated as received on May 26, 2010. Doc. 26-1, pp. 2-6. The grievances only identify
Vatani as having denied Guzman medical equipment.
They specify that she
confiscated his walking cane and orthopedic hand glove without cause. Id. at 2.
There is no reference to Sterner or Avila as well as Staples. The defendants further
point out that the grievances were submitted well before the date of the constitutional
violation asserted in Guzman’s complaint, November 17, 2011. Consequently,
Guzman did not give the administration or the defendants reasonable notice of the
issues presented in his complaint.
The defendants contend that Guzman’s allegations against Avila and Sterner are
conclusory because he has not presented facts which illustrate their participation in the
alleged wrong. They note that Guzman’s original complaint asserts that the defendants
violated Guzman’s rights by changing the prescribed treatment. See Doc. 1, p. 3.
Guzman states that “P.A. Vatani refused to carry out/and completely ignored Dr.
Stanley’s medical order.” Id. at 4. However, there are no specific allegations
regarding Avila and Sterner. The defendants point out that the Court instructed
Guzman to describe the personal involvement of each defendant in the denial of
medical care as alleged in the complaint. See Doc. # 6, p. 3 (Question 7). Guzman’s
response to the personal involvement of both Avila and Sterner was, “Plaintiff has a
problem obtaining medical records to support his claim.” Doc. # 8, p. 3. He also
requests that the Court accept his claims at “face value.” Id.
The defendants assert that Guzman has failed to allege actions by them to
demonstrate that they were personally involved in the alleged deprivations. They
contend that Avila and Sterner should be dismissed because there is no factual or
evidentiary support of their liability for his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
A movant is entitled to summary judgment if he shows “that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986);
McFaul v. Valenzuela, 684 F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2012). In considering such a
motion, this court construes “all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party.” Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal
citation and quotations marks omitted). For summary judgment, the movant has the
burden of showing that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving
party’s case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. In doing so, the movant must establish the
“absence of evidence to support an essential element of the non-movant's case.”
Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Texas, 560 F.3d 316, 326 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal
citations omitted). The motion for summary judgment must be denied if the movant
fails to meet this initial burden. Littlefield v. Forney Indep. Sch. Dist., 268 F.3d 275,
282 (5th Cir. 2001). However, if the movant does succeed in meeting this burden, the
non-movant must go beyond the pleadings and identify specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue of a material fact warranting trial. Id.
To prove there is an absence of evidence in support of the non-movant’s claim,
the movant must identify areas that are essential to the claim in which there is an
“absence of material fact.” Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. v. Reyna, 401 F.3d 347, 349 (5th
Cir. 2005). However, the movant “need not negate the elements of the non-movant’s
case.” Boudreaux v. Swift Transp. Co. Inc., 402 F.3d 536, 540 (5th Cir. 2005).
Mere conclusions and allegations are not summary judgment evidence and
cannot be used to defeat or support a motion for summary judgment. Topalian v.
Ehrman¸954 F.2d 1125, 1131 (5th Cir. 1992). To successfully oppose a motion for
summary judgment, the non-movant must present specific facts showing “the
existence of a genuine issue concerning every essential component of its case.” Am.
Eagle Airlines, Inc., v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l, 343 F.3d 401, 405 (5th Cir. 2003).
If the non-movant fails to point out evidence opposing summary judgment, it is not
the court’s duty to search the record for such evidence. Malacara v. Garber, 353 F.3d
393, 405 (5th Cir. 2003).
Exhaustion - 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)
Because Guzman is incarcerated, this lawsuit is governed by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (the “PLRA”). The PLRA prohibits any action by a prisoner
in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning “prison conditions” until “such
administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The
exhaustion requirement found in § 1997e(a) applies to all inmate suits about prison
life, “whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether
they allege excessive force or some other wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532
(2002). The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that § 1997e(a) mandates
exhaustion of all administrative procedures before an inmate can file any suit
challenging prison conditions. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001);
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006); see also Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 212
(2007) (confirming that “[t]here is no question that exhaustion is mandatory under the
PLRA and that unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court”).
The Fifth Circuit has acknowledged that “[q]uibbles about the nature of a
prisoner’s complaint, type of remedy sought, and the sufficiency or breadth of prison
grievance procedures” have been foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent on the
exhaustion requirement found in the PLRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Wright v.
Hollingsworth, 260 F.3d 357, 358 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S.
731, 741 n. 6 (2001)). Thus, the Fifth Circuit has consistently mandated that a
prisoner must exhaust his administrative remedies by complying with applicable
grievance procedures before filing a federal civil rights lawsuit related to prison
conditions. See, e.g. Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 515 (5th Cir. 2004). The
purpose of the grievance is to alert prison officials to a problem, not to notify an
official that he may be subjected to a potential lawsuit. Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d
The TDCJ has established a two part grievance system as authorized by the
state legislature. See TEX. ADMIN. CODE ANN. § 283.3 (West 2013). See also
Johnson, 385 F.3d at 515; see also Wendell v. Asher, 162 F.3d 887, 891 (5th Cir.
1998) (outlining the two-step procedure, which at Step 1 entails submitting an
administrative grievance at the institutional level followed by a Step 2 appeal if the
result is unfavorable); see also Almond v. Tarver, 468 F. Supp. 2d 886, 896 (E.D. Tex.
2006) (citing 37 TEX. ADMIN. CODE ANN. § 283.3 (West 2006)). A Step 1 grievance,
which is reviewed by officials at the inmate’s assigned facility, must be filed within
fifteen days of the alleged incident or challenged event. See Johnson, 385 F.3d at 515.
Once an inmate receives a response to his Step 1 grievance, he then has up to ten days
to file a Step 2 grievance to appeal an unfavorable result. See id. Step 2 grievances
are reviewed at the state level. See id. A Texas prisoner must pursue a grievance
through both steps to satisfy the exhaustion requirement. See id. (citing Wright v.
Hollingsworth, 260 F.3d 357, 358 (5th Cir. 2001)). Mere substantial compliance with
the grievance process is not sufficient. Dillon v. Rogers 596 F.3d 260, 268 (5th Cir.
2010). See also Johnson v. Ford, 261 F. App’x 752, 755 (5th Cir. 2008) (“In this
Circuit, ‘a strict approach’ is taken to the exhaustion requirement.) (citing Days v.
Johnson, 322 F.3d 863, 866 (5th Cir.2003).
While adopting a strict approach to prisoners exhausting their administrative
remedies, the Fifth Circuit has determined that it is not necessary for an inmate to file
repeated grievances for a continuing deprivation or condition. Id., at 521-522. On the
other hand, a grievance filed in response to a particular incident does not apply to
claims to future incidents whether they are similar or discrete. Johnson, 385 F.3d at
522 n.13 (“Thus, an inmate who claims to have been beaten by guards (or, for that
matter, not protected by guards) once one month and again the next month can
rightfully be expected to grieve both incidents . . .”). Consequently, an inmate must
file a grievance for each separate incident. Id.
A plaintiff in a civil rights action must show that the defendants were either
personally involved in the alleged violations or that there was a “sufficient causal
connection between the defendants’ conduct and the violations. Rios v. City of Del
Rio, 444 F.3d 417, 425 (5th Cir. 2006); Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381, 382 (5th
Cir. 1983) (“Personal involvement is an essential element of a civil rights cause of
action.”). The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply in civil rights actions.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S., 662, 676 (2009); Cronn v. Buffington, 150 F.3d 538, 544
(5th Cir. 1998); Eason v. Thaler, 73 F.3d 1322, 1327 (5th Cir. 1996).
Grievances Are Not Sufficiently Proximate in Time
Guzman alleges in his complaint and in his more definite statement that Dr.
Stanley D. Allen ordered medical boots, medical gloves, a medical mattress, and a
medical cushion on November 1, 2011, and that Vatani denied him the mattress,
boots, and cushion on November 17, 2011. Doc. # 1, p. 3; Doc. # 8, p. 3. However,
the Step 1 Grievance was submitted more than 19 months earlier in March of 2010.
The response to that grievance stated that Guzman had been seen and assessed for his
health complaints including his request for a cane and a medical glove. Doc. # 26-1,
p. 3. Guzman’s Step 2 Grievance was submitted in May of 2010, and responded to
on August 2, 2010. Id. at 6. The response indicated that the medical provider had
seen him and determined there was no medical necessity for a cane, glove, or mattress
at that time. Id. at 6. It also indicated that Guzman failed to informally resolve the
problem and advised him to attempt such a resolution if his condition warranted
additional evaluations. Id. The response also advised him that he could then file
another Step 1 Grievance if he was still dissatisfied with the informal resolution, but
that no further action was warranted concerning the present grievance. Id.
Guzman’s complaint concerns a separate alleged denial from the one cited in
the grievances. The grievances were also resolved more than a year before the
violation, as stated in the complaint, is alleged to have occurred. It is well established
that an inmate must file his Step 1 grievance within 15 days of the alleged violation.
See Johnson, 385 F.3d at 515.
Guzman’s grievance does not meet this criteria.
Moreover, he did not comply with TDCJ’s informal criteria for resolving his
complaint before resorting to the grievance process. See Doc. # 26-1, p. 6. Given the
remoteness in time between the filing of the grievances and the occurrence of the
complained of conduct and the fact that the grievances preceded the complained of
conduct, Guzman did not satisfy the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement. Johnson, 385
F.3d at 521 n.13 (“Thus, an inmate who claims to have been beaten by guards (or, for
that matter, not protected by guards) once one month and again the next month can
rightfully be expected to grieve both incidents”).
The Grievances Do Not Identify All Parties or Alleged Acts
In addition to being untimely, the grievances do not comply with the exhaustion
requirement because they do not adequately identify those who were involved in the
alleged deprivations; nor is there any indication of the nature of their involvement.
Guzman names four defendants in his civil rights complaint, but he identifies only one
party, Lisa Vatani, in his grievances. Also, the grievances are solely concerned with
Vatani’s alleged denial of medical items while his civil rights complaint includes
allegations that Guzman was forced to work beyond his capacity.
There is no
language in section 1997e which requires an inmate to name “‘all of the defendants’”
in the civil rights proceeding. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 217 (2007). The primary
purpose of the prison grievance system is to notify custodial officials about a problem,
but it is usually necessary to identify those individuals who bear responsibility for the
problem as well as the specific actions which caused it. Johnson, 385 F.3d at 522.
The Court can only reverse a prison’s erroneous administrative decision if it was made
in response to a prisoner’s grievance or objection which adequately informed the
prison administrators about the problem.
See Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90-91.
“[G]rievances must contain the sort of information that the administrative system
requires.” Johnson, 385 F.3d at 517 (quoting Strong v. David, 297 F.3d 646, 649 (7th
Cir. 2002)). In some instances, a prisoner alerts the prison officials and complies with
the exhaustion requirement if he gives as much relevant information as possible
concerning a condition which is in violation of the Constitution. See Johnson, 385
F.3d at 517 (citing Brown v. Sikes, 212 F.3d 1205, 1207-10 (11th Cir. 2000)). In
contrast, a grievance that names a specific individual who committed a specified act
but fails to identify another individual who was allegedly involved in the incident does
not comply with the exhaustion requirement. Id. (citing Curry v. Scott, 249 F.3d 493,
505 (6th Cir. 2001)). For example, a grievance about a guard who assaulted an inmate
which does not name another guard who allegedly witnessed the incident, but did not
intervene, is not sufficient to exhaust remedies with regard to the second guard.
Johnson, 385 F.3d at 517 (citing Curry, 249 F.3d at 505).
Guzman’s grievances only address Vatani’s alleged denials of medical items.
There are no allegations that Sterner or Avila were behind the deprivations; nor are
there any allegations that he was forced to perform tasks which are beyond his
physical limits. Consequently, Guzman failed to provide sufficient detail in order to
give the TDCJ administration reasonable notice of a factual basis for his grievances
against Avila, Sterner, or Staples. Johnson, 385 F.3d at 516-517.
To establish a section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must present facts which
demonstrate that the defendant was personally involved in the acts or omissions which
violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. James v. Texas Collin County, 535 F.3d
365, 373 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Anderson v. Pasadena Indep. Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d
439, 443 (5th Cir. 1999)). Guzman’s responses to the Court’s order for more definite
statement indicate that he does not have sufficient knowledge of Avila and Sterner’s
involvement to assert a complaint.2 His allegations against Avila and Sterner are
“Plaintiff has a problem obtaining medical records to support his claim [against
Sterner and Avila], so Plaintiff ask this Court to take his claim at face value.” Doc.
# 8, p. 3.
conclusory and contain no factual support for his claim that they are responsible for
the alleged deprivations. Guzman’s conclusory allegations do not satisfy his burden
in showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact to preclude summary
judgment for Avila and Sterner. Warfield v. Byron, 436 F.3d 551, 557 (5th Cir. 2006).
Guzman claims that Warden Staples violated his work restrictions by assigning
him to a job that entailed lifting articles in excess of fifteen pounds. However,
Guzman does not assert any facts which demonstrate how Staples was personally
involved in his work assignment.
Staples and Vatani have not joined in the motion for summary judgment under
consideration.3 The Fifth Circuit has recognized that when one defending party
establishes that the plaintiff has no cause of action, as Sterner and Avila have done in
this case, this defense generally inures also to the benefit of other similarly situated
defendants. See Lewis v. Lynn, 236 F.3d 766, 768 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting United
States v. Peerless Ins. Co., 374 F.2d 942, 945 (4th Cir. 1967) (citations omitted)); see
also McCarty v. Zapata County, 243 F. App’x 792, 794 (5th Cir. 2007). The record
Service was ordered on Vatani, but she has not filed an answer. There is a docket
entry for a motion for summary judgment [Doc. # 20] filed by Staples, but the
document assigned to the docket entry is a proposed order.
demonstrates that the complaint is subject to dismissal with regard to all parties
because Guzman has failed to exhaust available prisoner administrative remedies as
required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows:
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Doc. # 26] is GRANTED.
Defendants’ motion to stay scheduling order [Doc. # 27] is GRANTED.
Defendant Staples’ motion for summary judgment [Doc. # 20] is
DENIED without prejudice.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas on _________________, 2013.
NANCY F. ATLAS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?