London v. Fort Bend County Sheriff Department
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (cfelchak, 4)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
HENRY LONDON,
Inmate ID #P00194069,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
v.
FORT BEND COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-14-3381
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The
plaintiff,
Henry
London
(Inmate
ID
#P00194069),
currently in custody at the Fort Bend County Jail.
filed a Civil Complaint under 42 U.S.C.
of his civil rights
§
is
London has
1983 alleging violations
(Docket Entry No.1).
Although the court
previously dismissed this action for want of prosecution, it will
reopen
the
case
to
consider
a
recently
filed
Statement of London's claims (Docket Entry No. 19).
More
Definite
Because London
is a prisoner, the court is required to scrutinize the claims and
dismiss the complaint, in whole or in part, if it determines that
the complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted" or "seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief."
28 U.S.C.
§
1915A(b).
After reviewing all of the pleadings the court will dismiss this
action for the reasons explained below.
I.
London
insulin.
suffers
from
Background
Type
diabetes
II
(Docket Entry No. 19, p. 1)
for
which he
takes
London describes the type of
insulin that he takes as "fast acting."
(Id. at 2.)
It reportedly
starts working to lower blood sugar 15 to 20 minutes after it is
taken.
(Id.)
So that his blood sugar does not get too low, London
(Id. )
ordinarily eats a meal soon after he takes his insulin.
On November 3, 2014, London received his insulin shot at about
3:50 a.m.
(Docket Entry No.1, p. 3)
At about 4:23 a.m. Sergeant
Brady gave London a "snack bag for [his] diabetes."
London was
complained
not
given
Sergeant
a
regular
Brady
breakfast
reportedly
meal.
replied
diabetic and "did not need any cereal."
(Id.)
(Id. )
However,
When London
that
London
was
When London com-
plained about the lack of breakfast to the officer on duty (Deputy
Leal), the officer responded that he did not "give a fuck."
(Id.)
After London was denied a breakfast meal, he reportedly became
"light
headed and
felt
(Docket
faint."
Entry No.
19,
p.
3)
Another inmate gave him "a pack of cookies" to bring London's blood
sugar level up.
London
claims
(Id.)
that
the
Although he did not suffer physical harm,
incident
caused
him
to
suffer
mental
distress because "diabetes can and will cause death if not taken
care of."
(Id. )
By refusing to give him a breakfast meal on November 3, 2014,
London claims that Sergeant Brady and Deputy Leal violated his
constitutional
rights.
([Amended]
-2-
Complaint
Under
42
U. S. C.
§
1983, Civil Rights Act, Docket Entry No.6, p. 3)
London also
claims that Fort Bend County Sheriff Nehls failed to adequately
train these officers on the importance of providing a meal
insulin-dependent
diabetic
(Id. )
inmates.
London
to
contends,
therefore, that the Fort Bend County Sheriff's Department is liable
for depriving him of his constitutionally protected rights.
London seeks $10 million in compensatory damages.
II.
A.
(Id. )
(Id. at4.)
Discussion
Lack of Capacity
As
an
initial
matter,
the
Fort
Bend
County
,
Sheriff's
Department must be dismissed because it is not amenable to suit.
A party to a lawsuit must have the capacity to sue or be sued.
See,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 17; Maxwell v. Henry, 815 F. Supp. 213, 215 (S.D.
Tex. 1993).
department
Texas law does not allow a county or municipal police
to
sue
or
be
sued
Darby v.
separate legal existence."
F.2d 311,
omitted) .
Fort
Bend
existence
313
(5th Cir.
London
County
that
is
does
directly
1991)
not
Sheriff's
separate
unless
it
"enjoy [s]
Pasadena Police Dept.,
a
939
(internal quotation and citation
allege
Department
from
Fort
facts
has
Bend
showing
been
that
granted
County
or
the
legal
that
it
otherwise qualifies as an entity with capacity to sue or be sued.
See Jacobs v. Port Neches Police Dept., 915 F. Supp. 842, 844 (E.D.
Tex. 1996)
(noting that a Texas county sheriff's department is not
a legal entity capable of being sued "absent express action by the
superior corporation
(the county
I
-3-
in the case of the sheriff's
department)
'to grant the servient agency with jural authority'")
(quoting Darby,
939 F.2d at 313-14))
To the extent that the
Fort Bend County Sheriff's Department lacks capacity to be sued,
London's claims against this defendant will be dismissed as legally
frivolous.
B.
Failure to State a Claim
London's allegations against the remaining defendants cannot
sustain a claim for damages.
London admits in his more definite
statement that he "did not suffer any physical injury" as a result
of not receiving a breakfast meal on November 3, 2014, and that he
did not seek medical care as a
result of that incident.
Entry No.
he seeks damages for
19,
mental inj ury. "
p.
3)
Instead,
(Docket
"more of a
(Id. )
This case is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42
U.S.C.
§
1997e(e),
which bars prisoners
from
filing
suit
"for
mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a
prior showing of physical injury."
In other words, allegations of
"mental anguish, emotional distress,
barred by
§
Cir. 2005).
1997e(e).
[or] psychological harm" are
See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374 (5th
Because London did not suffer a physical injury, his
complaint is barred by
§
1997e(e) and will be dismissed for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Al ternati vely,
to
the
extent
that
the
complaint
could be
construed to seek relief other than compensatory damages,
still fails to state a claim.
London
London concedes in his more definite
-4-
statement that he was only denied a breakfast meal on one occasion.
(Docket Entry No. 19, p. 4)
London's allegation that he was denied
a
occasion
breakfast
meal
on
one
constitutional violation.
(5th Cir. 1999)
does
not
give
rise
to
a
See Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507
(holding that denial of dinner on eight occasions
over a seven-month span failed to establish an Eighth Amendment
violation) .
For this additional reason,
the complaint must be
dismissed for failure to state a claim.
III.
Based on the foregoing,
Conclusion
the court ORDERS as follows:
1.
The Order of Dismissal for want
(Docket Entry No. 15) is VACATED.
of
prosecution
2.
Plaintiff's Civil Complaint (Docket Entry No.1) is
DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)
as legally frivolous and for failure to state a
claim.
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to the parties.
The Clerk will also provide a
copy
and
of
this
Memorandum
facsimile transmission,
Eastern District
of
Opinion
Order
by
regular
mail,
or e-mail to the District Clerk for the
Texas,
Tyler
Division,
211
West
Ferguson,
Tyler, Texas 75702, Attention: Manager of the Three-Strikes List.
SIGNED at Houston,
Texas,
on this 14th day of July,
2015.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?