Caballero v. Stephens Director TDCJ-CID

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Signed by Judge Nancy F. Atlas) Parties notified.(sashabranner, 4)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ARMANDO CABALLERO,
TDCJ # 602232,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-14-03597

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
State inmate Armando Caballero (TDCJ # 602232) filed this lawsuit under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his civil rights while he was incarcerated at the
Byrd Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice – Correctional Institutions
Division (collectively “TDCJ”) near Huntsville, Texas. He names the following
TDCJ Director William Stephens and TDCJ Region III Coordinator S. James as the
defendants to this action. Caballero proceeds pro se and has moved for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. After reviewing all of the pleadings as required by 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court concludes that Caballero’s motion for pauper’s status
should be granted and that this case must be dismissed for reasons that follow.
I.

BACKGROUND
Caballero alleges that he arrived at the Byrd Unit (a TDCJ unit where inmates

are often initially processed when entering the TDCJ system) and that his property
was inventoried but was never delivered to him [Doc. # 1, at 1]. He further alleges
that he attempted to resolve the matter by filing Step 1 and Step 2 grievances. He
also states that a medical administrator at the TDCJ Jester III telephoned the Byrd
Unit property officer. Caballero complains that the only response he received was a
request for an extension of time to answer the grievance and that his grievance
paperwork has not been returned to him. Caballero seeks the return of his property
or $2,500 in compensation for his loss.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
This civil action is subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which

applies to all litigants proceeding in forma pauperis. Under this statute, a district
court “shall dismiss” any in forma pauperis action under § 1915(e)(2)(B) if the court
determines that the complaint is: (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief. In conducting this analysis, “[a] document filed pro
se is ‘to be liberally construed,’ . . . and ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully
pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
-2-

A court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B) “if it lacks
an arguable basis in law or fact.” Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir.
2005). “A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory, such as if the complaint alleges the violation of a legal interest
which clearly does not exist.” Samford v. Dretke, 562 F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir. 2009);
Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997).
III.

DISCUSSION
Caballero asserts that his rights were violated under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This

statute provides a private right of action for damages to individuals who are deprived
of “any rights, privileges, or immunities” protected by the Constitution or federal law
by any person acting under the color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Breen v. Texas
A&M Univ., 485 F.3d 325, 332 (5th Cir. 2007). To establish liability under § 1983,
a civil rights plaintiff must establish two elements: (1) state action, i.e., that the
conduct complained of was committed under color of state law, and (2) a resulting
violation of federal law, i.e., that the conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights secured
by the Constitution or laws of the United States. See Collins v. City of Harker
Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 120 (1992); Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 142 (1979); see
also Doe ex rel. Magee v. Covington County School Dist. ex rel. Keys, 675 F.3d 849,
854 -855 (5th Cir.2012) (To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “a plaintiff must
-3-

(1) allege a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States and (2) demonstrate that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person
acting under color of state law.”) (citing James v. Tex. Collin Cnty., 535 F.3d 365,
373 (5th Cir.2008)).
A.

Loss of Property - No Denial of Due Process

Caballero's claim concerns an alleged wrongful taking of his personal property.
An unauthorized taking of an inmate's property is not actionable in a prisoner civil
rights action where the state provides a remedy. Hudson v. Palmer, 104 S.Ct. 3194
(1984); Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 768 (5th Cir. 2009) (confiscation of
property without providing confiscation form, as required by prison regulations, is not
a violation of due process rights); Lewis v. Woods, 848 F.2d 649, 651 (5th Cir. 1988);
see also Thornton v. Merchant, 526 F. App’x 385, 387 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing
Brewster, at 768). Caballero's constitutional due process rights have not been
violated because the Texas tort of conversion provides an adequate state remedy.
Brewster, 587 F.3d at 768 (citing Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir.
1994)). See also Cathey v. Guenther, 47 F.3d 162, 164 (5th Cir. 1995) (Texas law
provides an adequate remedy for unauthorized taking of property). Caballero fails to
assert a § 1983 claim because he has not demonstrated that there is no state remedy
available to him. Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1194 (10th Cir. 2010).
-4-

B.

No Violation Based on Denial of Grievances

Liberally construed, Cabellero's pleadings also present a complaint concerning
the lack of response to his grievances. His claims regarding the alleged failure to act
on his grievances have no basis in law. A prisoner does not have a federally
protected liberty interest in having his grievances decided in his favor. Morris v.
Cross, 476 F.App'x 783, 785 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Geiger, 404 F.3d at 374). Under
the PLRA, prisoners must utilize the administrative grievance process before filing
a civil rights complaint. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503,
515 (5th Cir. 2004). The TDCJ has a two step system which must be completed
before the process is considered exhausted. Johnson, 385 F.3d at 515 (citing Wright
v. Hollingsworth, 260 F.3d 357, 358 (5th Cir. 2001)). While an inmate must file a
grievance addressing the perceived violation and complete the administrative process
before filing a complaint, there is no guarantee that the outcome will be favorable.
See, e.g., Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners Labor Union, 433 U.S. 119, 138 (1977)
(Burger, J., concurring) (applauding the adoption of grievance procedures by prisons,
but expressly declining to suggest that such procedures are “constitutionally
mandated”); Morris, 476 F.App'x at 785 (citing Geiger, 404 F.3d at 374; Martin v.
Scott, 156 F.3d 576, 578 (5th Cir. 2012)).
Caballero names two high level administrators as the defendants and appears
-5-

to contend that they are liable for their failure to act in response to his complaints.
Caballero fails to assert facts which show that the named individuals were personally
involved in the alleged wrongful taking of his property. He cannot establish a civil
rights claim against persons with whom he has had no direct contact and who are only
tangentially involved due to the actions of their subordinates. Anderson v. Pasadena
Independent School Dist., 184 F.3d 439, 443 (5th Cir. 1999). See also Eason v.
Thaler, 73 F.3d 1322, 1327 (5th Cir. 1996) (“There is no respondeat superior liability
under section 1983.”). Caballero’s dissatisfaction with the lack of responses to his
grievances does not support an actionable claim. See Geiger, 404 F.3d at 374.
Having reviewed Caballero’s claims and allegations, the Court concludes that
his complaint is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory and has no basis in
law. McCormick v. Stadler, 105 F.3d 1059, 1061 (5th Cir. 1997). Therefore, this
action shall be dismissed as legally frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
IV.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Caballero fails to state any claim that is not frivolous

or upon which relief may be granted. The Court ORDERS as follows:
1.

The plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. # 2]
is GRANTED.

2.

Officials at the TDCJ Inmate Trust Fund are ORDERED to deduct
funds from the inmate trust account of Armando Caballero (TDCJ
-6-

# 602232) and forward them to the Clerk on a regular basis, in
compliance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), until the entire
filing fee ($350.00) has been paid.
3.

The plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice DISMISSED
with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies to the parties. The Clerk will also
provide a copy of this memorandum and order by regular mail, facsimile
transmission, or e-mail to: (1) the TDCJ-CID Inmate Trust Fund, P.O. Box 60,
Huntsville, Texas 77342-0060, Fax Number [phone]; (2) the TDCJ –
Office of the General Counsel, P.O. Box 13084, Austin, Texas 78711, Fax
Number [phone]; and (3) the District Clerk for the Eastern District of
Texas, Tyler Division, 211 West Ferguson, Tyler, Texas, 75702, Attention:
Manager of the Three Strikes List.
December 19
SIGNED at Houston, Texas on _________________________, 2014.

___________________________
Nancy F. Atlas
United States District Judge

-7-