Washington v. Garcia et al
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing with prejudice 1 Complaint. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ROBERT LEE WASHINGTON,
TDCJ #684919,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHERIFF ADRIAN GARCIA, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-15-0737
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The plaintiff, Robert Lee Washington (SPN #002247082, former
TDCJ #444056, TDCJ #1930260) is currently incarcerated at the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division
("TDCJ").
Washington has filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§
1983,
alleging civil rights violations at the Harris County Jail, where
he was formerly in custody.
At the court's request Washington has
filed a more definite statement of his claims.
Because he 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
defendant who is immune from such relief."
28 U.S.C.
After reviewing all of the pleadings as required,
§
from a
1915A(b).
the court will
dismiss this action for the reasons explained below.
I.
Background
Washington was arrested for possession of cocaine and placed
in the Harris County Jail on March 6, 2014.
to be booked into the Jail,
deputies
While he was waiting
Washington claims that unidentified
slandered him by telling other inmates
pedophile, a murderer, a snitch, and homosexual.
Definite Statement, Docket Entry No.
11, p.
that he was a
(Plaintiff's More
2)1
As a result of
these false characterizations, Washington contends that deputies at
the Jail compromised his safety and placed his life "in harm's
way."
that
(Complaint, Docket Entry No.1,
Sheriff
Garcia
is
therefore
at 3)
liable
Washington claims
for
the
deputies'
defamation of his character.
In addition to the deputies' remarks, Washington claims that
a woman he was "committing adultery" with, defendant Jackie White,
videotaped him without his consent while the two were having sex.
(Complaint,
Docket Entry No.1,
Statement, Docket Entry No.
p.
2;
11, p. 4)
Plaintiff's More Definite
It is not clear from the
rambling more definite statement that Washington provides, but he
appears to claim that the videotape was admitted as evidence during
a
parole
Statement,
revocation
proceeding.
Docket Entry No.
11,
(Plaintiff's
p.
7)
More
Definite
Washington claims
deputies showed the tape to other inmates,
that
further damaging his
1Page citations to documents are to the pagination imprinted
by the federal court's electronic filing system at the top and
right of the document.
-2-
character
and
exposing
him
to
harassment.
(Id.
Although he does not provide specific details,
at
4,
10.)
Washington also
contends that his court-appointed defense lawyer, defendant Alex G.
Azzo,
did not do enough to protect him and helped cover up the
damage caused by the videotape.
p.
2;
(Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1-2,
Plaintiff's More Definite Statement, Docket Entry No.
11,
p. 6)
Washington
Ratcliff,
is
contends
the
that
"mastermind"
his
sister,
behind
the
defendant
attack
Evelyn
against
his
character and that she conspired with deputies at the Jail to cause
him harm by saying that he is a pedophile.
(Plaintiff's More
Definite Statement, Docket Entry No. 11, p. 10)
Washington vaguely
asserts that his sister had him under surveillance and conspired to
have him locked up because of a dispute over some property in his
mother's estate.
(Id. at 10-11.)
Washington blames his sister for
"spread [ing] dirt on [him] to destroy [his]
As
a
result
of
his
sister's
life."
actions
and
(Id. at 9.)
the
deputies'
disparaging conduct, Washington contends that he had to be moved
three times at the Jail due to "antagonistic jeers and threats"
from other
(Complaint,
inmates.
Docket
Entry No.
1-2,
p.
3)
Washington clarifies that he was not touched or physically harmed
at the Jail, but that he was placed in fear,
"mentally" harassed,
and "disrespected" every day by other inmates as a result of the
deputies'
remarks.
Entry No.
11, pp. 4,
(Plaintiff's More Definite Statement, Docket
5)
Washington claims that he has suffered
-3-
mental and emotional damage and dishonor due to the defendants'
actions.
Washington
requests
a
federal
investigation
of
Harris County Jail staff and "retribution," presumably compensatory
damages,
for
"his
character being
assassinated."
(Complaint,
Docket Entry No. 1-2, p. 3)
II.
Discussion
The plaintiff proceeds pro se in this case.
Courts construe
pleadings filed by pro se litigants under a less stringent standard
of review.
See Haines v. Kerner, 92 S. Ct. 594 (1972).
Under this
standard" [a] document filed pro se is 'to be liberally construed, '
Estelle
[v.
complaint,
Gamble,
however
97 S.
Ct.
285,
inartfully
292
pleaded,
(1976)],
and
must
held
be
'a pro se
to
less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'"
Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007).
Even under this
lenient standard Washington's complaint must be dismissed for the
reasons explained briefly below.
A.
Frivolousness
Liberally construed, Washington contends that he is the victim
of a corrupt conspiracy orchestrated primarily by his sister for
the
purpose
of
assassinating
his
character.
Washington's
conclusory allegations of conspiracy and covert surveillance appear
factually frivolous because they are "fanciful," "fantastic," and
"delusional."
Denton v. Hernandez,
112 S. Ct. 1728, 1733
(quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1833
-4-
(1992)
(1989)).
To
the extent that Washington's claims are frivolous, the complaint is
subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
Denton,
supra,
254, 259
§
1915A for that reason.
112 S. Ct. at 1733; Gartrell v. Gaylor,
(5th Cir. 1993).
Alternatively,
See
981 F.2d
the complaint fails to
state a viable claim for other reasons.
B.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Washington's complaint concerns the conditions of plaintiff's
confinement
at
the
Harris
County Jail
and misconduct
personnel.
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act an inmate is
required to exhaust administrative remedies
for all
by Jail
"action [s]
brought with respect to prison conditions" before filing a
civil rights suit in federal court under 42 U.S.C.
other Federal law."
42 U.S.C.
§
1997e(a).
repeatedly emphasized that
§
administrative
before
procedures
1983 or "any
§
The Supreme Court has
1997e(a) mandates exhaustion of all
challenging prison conditions.
an
inmate
can
file
any
suit
See Booth v. Churner, 121 S. Ct.
1819, 1825 (2001); Porter v. Nussle,
122 S. Ct. 983,
988
(2002);
Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2382-83 (2006); see also Jones v.
Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910,918-19 (2007)
question
that
exhaustion
is
(confirming that "[t]here is no
mandatory
under
the
P[rison]
L[itigation] R[eform] A[ct] and that unexhausted claims cannot be
brought in court.").
Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, the
Fifth Circuit has also mandated that a prisoner must exhaust his
administrative
remedies
by complying with applicable
-5-
grievance
procedures before filing a federal civil rights lawsuit related to
prison conditions.
See Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 515 (5th
Cir. 2004).
Washington concedes in his more definite statement that the
Harris County Jail had a grievance process in place while he was
confined there, but that he did not file any grievances regarding
his
claims
about
the
alleged
misconduct
by
deputies
conditions of his confinement in this case.
requires
exhaustion,
prisoners
bypass the administrative process.
By failing
2389-90.
Because
may
not
See Woodford,
to complete
the
j ail
§
1997e(a)
deliberately
126 S.
Ct. at
grievance procedure
Washington has bypassed available administrative remedies.
Carbe v. Lappin, 492 F.3d 325, 238 (5th Cir. 2007).
the
PLRA I
S
exhaustion
requirement
found
mandates exhaustion before filing suit.
151 F.3d 292,
296
(5th Cir.
under circumstances
that
1998)
the
(Plaintiff's More
Definite Statement, Docket Entry No. 11, p. 4)
expressly
or
in
§
See
This violates
1997e (a),
which
See Underwood v. Wilson,
(affirming the dismissal even
would seem
"inefficient").
For this
reason Washington's complaint concerning conditions of confinement
at the Jail must be dismissed.
c.
Defamation is Not Actionable Under
Washington's
under 42 U.S.C.
§
allegations
1983.
of
§
1983
defamation are
not
actionable
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C.
§
1983 a
plaintiff must demonstrate first, a violation of the Constitution
-6-
or of federal law; and second, that the violation was committed by
someone acting under color of state law.
Gen.
Hosp.,
430
F.3d
245,
252-53
See Atteberry v. Nocona
(5th
Cir.
citations omitted); see also Townsend v. Moya,
(5th Cir. 2002)
anyone who,
2005)
(internal
291 F.3d 859,
861
(In short, " [s]ection 1983 provides a claim against
'under color of' state law, deprives another of his or
her constitutional rights.")
Washington's allegations do not satisfy the first criteria for
a claim under
not federal,
§
1983 because defamation is a violation of state,
law.
571 (Tex. 1998)
See WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568,
(reciting the elements of a defamation claim under
Texas law); see also Waste Mgmt. of Texas, Inc. v. Texas Disposal
Systems Landfill,
Inc., 434 S.W.3d 142
(Tex. 2014)
There is no
constitutional right to be free from defamation or slander.
Paul v. Davis, 96 S. Ct. 1155, 1166 (1976)
See
(recognizing that, while
a State may protect against injury to reputation by virtue of its
tort law, a person's reputation does not implicate a "liberty" or
"property"
Clause) .
interest
Thus,
under 42 U.S.C.
of
the
sort
protected by
the
Due
Process
claims of libel and slander are not cognizable
§
1983.
See Cook v. Houston Post,
616 F.2d 791,
794 (5th Cir. 1980); see also Mowbray v. Cameron County, Tex., 274
F.3d 269, 277 (5th Cir. 2001)
(holding that allegations of slander
by a former prisoner, resulting in public humiliation, scorn, and
ridicule, did not state a claim under 42 U.S.C.
v. Bowles,
687 F. Supp. 277, 282
-7-
§
(N. D. Tex. 1988)
1983); Castillo
(dismissing an
inmate's defamation claim against jail guards because, even if his
allegations were true,
he only alleged harm to his reputation,
which is not protected by the Constitution)
(citation omitted).
To
the extent that Washington contends that he was defamed by the
defendants, these allegations fail to state a claim under 42 U.S.C.
§
1983.
D.
Washington Cannot Otherwise
Emotional Distress
Recover Damages
for Mental
or
Washington cannot recover compensatory damages based on his
allegation that he was placed in harm's way at the Jailor that
deputies exposed him to scornful treatment by other inmates because
Washington concedes in his more definite statement that he was not
physically harmed.
Entry No.
11, p.
(Plaintiff's More Definite Statement, Docket
5)
At most,
he was harassed and disrespected.
(rd. )
The PLRA prohibits recovery of damages by prisoners in cases
that do not involve physical injury.
that
\\ [n]
0
Federal
confined in a
civil
The PLRA expressly provides
action may be
jail, prison,
brought
by a
prisoner
or other correctional facility,
for
mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a
prior showing of physical injury."
42 U.S.C.
§
1997e(e).
To the
extent that Washington's claims are based on mental or emotional
harm, his request for compensatory damages must be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 375 (5th Cir. 2005)
-8-
See
(holding that
a
prisoner's
failure
to
allege
physical
injury
precludes
his
recovery of compensatory damages for emotional or mental injuries
pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§
1997e(e)).
III.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows:
1.
Plaintiff's Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act, 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (Docket Entry No.1) is DISMISSED with
prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) as frivolous and for
failure to state a claim.
2.
The dismissal will count as a strike for purposes of 28
U.S.C. § 1915 (g).
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to the parties.
The Clerk will also provide a
copy of this Order by regular mail or e-mail to:
(1)
the TDCJ -
Office of the General Counsel, P.O. Box 13084, Austin, Texas 78711;
and (2) the District Clerk for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler
Division, 211 West Ferguson, Tyler, Texas 75702, Attention: Manager
of the Three-Strikes List.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the 29th day of May, 2015.
7
SIM LAKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-9-
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?