Beauregard v. Stephens et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing with prejudice 1 Complaint (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
November 07, 2016

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

NICHOLAS ALLAN BEAUREGARD,
TDCJ #1828305,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiff,

v.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, et al.,
Defendants.

David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-16-0290

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The plaintiff, Nicholas Allan Beauregard (TDCJ #1828305), has
filed a Prisoner's Civil Rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C.
("Complaint")

(Docket Entry No.

adequate medical

care while

§

1983

1) , alleging that he was denied
At

in state prison.

the

court' s

request Beauregard has provided a "More Definite Statement" of his
claims

(Docket Entry No.

9) ,

and the State Attorney General's

Office has provided a report under Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317
(lOth Cir. 1987)

("Martinez Report")

(Docket Entry No. 18), which

includes administrative and medical records that pertain to the
Complaint.

court

is

required to scrutinize the claims and dismiss the Complaint,

in

whole

or

Because

in

part,

Beauregard

if

it

is

incarcerated,

determines

that

the

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 considering

all of the pleadings, the court concludes that this case must be
dismissed for the reasons explained below.

I.

Background

Beauregard is currently incarcerated by the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division ("TDCJ")
at the Estelle Unit in Huntsville. 1

The defendants are former TDCJ

Director William Stephens, Estelle Unit Senior Warden O'Hara, and
"John

Doe"

Medical

Supervisor

of

the

Estelle

Unit

Medical

Infirmary. 2
In 1992, when Beauregard was 11 years of age, he accidentally
poked himself in the eye with a screwdriver. 3

In 2011 a private

physician (Dr. Scott Smith) determined that the eye "needed to come
out." 4

Beauregard reportedly requested surgery to remove his eye

when he was admitted to TDCJ in 2013. 5
On June 8, 2015, Beauregard had surgery to remove his eye at
the

University

Galveston. 6

of

Texas

Medical

Branch

( "UTMB")

Hospital

in

Beauregard claims that he was discharged from the UTMB

Hospital the following day on June 9, 2015, without a prescription

1

Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3.

2

Id.

3

Plaintiff's More Definite Statement, Docket Entry No. 9, p. 2.

4

Id. at 3.

5

Id. at 21 3.

6

Id. at 3.
-2-

for pain medication or a cleaning solution to keep the eye socket
from getting infected. 7
On July 26,
complaining

2015,

that

he

Beauregard submitted a Step 1 Grievance,
was

denied

pain

medication

and

solution upon his discharge from the UTMB Hospital. 8

cleaning

The prison

official who investigated the grievance reviewed Beauregard's chart
and responded on August 3, 2015, that doctors at the Hospital "did
not order medications for pain or solution to clean
socket." 9

[his eye]

The prison official noted that Beauregard was scheduled

for a follow-up appointment with the Ophthalmology Clinic a week
after

the

surgery on June

appointment. 10

16,

2015,

that

he

refused the

Beauregard did not file any sick call requests for

pain medication or cleaning solution. 11
on July 20,

but

He was seen by a provider

2015, when cleaning solution was ordered and he was

"re-referred"

to

the

Ophthalmology

Clinic

at

the

Hospital

in

Galveston. 12
On August

4,

2015,

Beauregard

filed

a

Step

2

Grievance

concerning his claim that he was not given pain medication or
7

Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 4;
Definite Statement, Docket Entry No. 9, p. 4.
8

Step 1 Grievance #2015183614,
Docket Entry No. 18-1, pp. 5-6.
9

Id.

at 6.

-3-

Plaintiff's

More

attached to Martinez Report,

cleaning solution after the removal of his eye . 13
official
October

with
1,

the

Health

Services

noting

2015,

TDCJ

that

Beauregard

An administrative

Division
had

replied

access

to

on

pain

medication because he was prescribed Ibuprofen "as needed Keep on
Person (KOP)" by a unit provider on June 2, 2015, before undergoing
surgery

on

medication

June
or

8 . 14

The

cleaning

official
solution

further
was

Ophthalmologist after surgery and that

confirmed

prescribed

he was

that
by

no
the

scheduled for a

follow-up examination, but refused the appointment. 15

The official

concluded by noting that a referral to the Ophthalmologist was
re-submitted for Beauregard when he was seen by a unit provider on
July 20, 2015, and that Beauregard did not complain of pain during
that appointment. 16
Medical records confirm that Beauregard's treating physicians
at the UTMB Hospital in Galveston discharged him with no change to
his

"home

medication. 17

medication

regimen"

and

did

not

prescribe

pain

Beauregard was scheduled to follow-up in one week

with the TDCJ Ophthalmology Clinic at the UTMB Hospital. 18

On

13

Step 2 Grievance #2015183614,, attached to Martinez Report
Docket Entry No. 18-1, pp. 3-4.
14

Id. at 4.

17

Discharge Summary, attached to Martinez Report, Docket Entry
No. 18-1, pp. 7-8.

-4-

June 16, 2015, Beauregard declined the appointment. 19

Beauregard

was treated in the Estelle Unit infirmary on July 20 2015, where he
requested something with which to clean his eye socket as well as
a "handicap shower and chow pass." 20

He did not complain of pain

or request pain medication at that appointment. 21

Beauregard was

prescribed a cleaning solution and issued a referral back to the
Ophthalmology Clinic at the UTMB Hospital. 22
On January 28, 2016, Beauregard executed the Complaint in this
case. 23
care

Beauregard contends that he was denied adequate medical
in

violation

of

the

Eighth

Amendment,

and

he

wants

compensatory damages from "TDCJ" for the "pain and suffering" that
he has endured due to the removal of his eye. 24
II.
A.

Discussion

Official Immunity - Eleventh Amendment

To the extent that Beauregard seeks monetary damages from TDCJ
or from the individual defendants in their official capacity as
TDCJ employees,

his

claims will be dismissed because

they are

19

TDCJ- ID Health Services Refusal of Treatment or Services,
attached to Martinez Report, Docket Entry No. 18-1, p. 9.
2

°Correctional Managed Care Clinic Notes, attached to Martinez
Report, Docket Entry No. 18-1, p. 10.
zlid.

23

Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 5.

24

Id. at 4.
-5-

precluded

by

Constitution.

the

Eleventh

Amendment

to

the

United

States

The Eleventh Amendment provides that "[t] he Judicial

power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any
suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the
United States by Citizens of another State,
Subjects of any Foreign State."

or by Citizens or

U.S. Const. amend XI.

Federal

court jurisdiction is restricted by the Eleventh Amendment and the
principle of sovereign immunity that it embodies.

See Seminole

Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 116 S. Ct. 1114, 1122 (1996); see also
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 104 S. Ct. 900, 908-09
(1984)

(explaining that the Eleventh Amendment acts as a jurisdic-

tional bar to suit against a

state in federal

court) .

Unless

expressly waived, the Eleventh Amendment bars an action in federal
court by, inter alia, a citizen of a state against his or her own
state, including a state agency.

See Martinez v. Texas Dep't of

Criminal Justice, 300 F.3d 567, 574 (5th Cir. 2002).
As a

state agency,

TDCJ is

immune

damages under the Eleventh Amendment.
F.3d 211,
recovery

213
of

(5th Cir.

money

1998).

damages

from a

suit

for money

See Talib v. Gilley,

138

The Eleventh Amendment bars a

under

42

employees in their official capacity.

U.S. C.

§

1983

from

state

See Oliver v. Scott,

276

F.3d 736, 742 (5th Cir. 2002); Aguilar v. Texas Dep't of Criminal
Justice,

160

Beauregard's

F.3d
claims

1052,
for

1054

(5th

monetary

-6-

Cir.
damages

1998).
from

Accordingly,
TDCJ

and

the

individual defendants in their official capacity as state employees
are dismissed as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
B.

Supervisory Liability

Beauregard fails to demonstrate that Director Stephens, Warden
O'Hara, and the John Doe Infirmary Supervisor are liable in their

individual capacities as supervisory officials.

A supervisor may

not be held liable for a civil rights violation under a theory of
respondeat superior or vicarious liability.

Monell v.

Social Svcs.

2018,

Evett v.

of City of New York,

DETNTFF,

330 F. 3d 681,

98 S.
689

Ct.

(5th Cir.

vicarious liability is inapplicable in a

§

2036

2003) .

Dep't of
(1978);
Because

1983 suit, "a plaintiff

must plead that each Government-official defendant,

through the

official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution."
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1948 (2009).
Supervisory officials can be held liable only if the plaintiff
demonstrates either one of the following:

(1)

the supervisor's

personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a
sufficient

causal

connection between the

conduct and the deprivation.
303-04 (5th Cir. 1987).

supervisor's

wrongful

See Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298,

There must be an affirmative link between

the injury and the defendant's conduct.

See id. at 304; see also

Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381, 382 (5th Cir. 1983)

(citing Rizzo

v. Goode, 96 S. Ct. 598, 604 (1976)).

In the absence of personal

participation in an offensive act

supervisor cannot be held

-7-

a

liable unless he implements a policy "so deficient that the policy
'itself is a

repudiation of constitutional rights'

moving force of the constitutional violation.'"

and is

Thompkins,

'the
828

F.2d at 304 (quotations omitted).
Beauregard has not alleged facts showing that the individual
defendants

had

violation.

any personal

involvement

with

Nor has Beauregard alleged facts

a

constitutional

showing that

the

enforcement of any particular policy was the moving force behind
any violation of his constitutional rights.

Because the allega-

tions do not establish the requisite personal involvement or the
enforcement of a constitutionally deficient policy, Beauregard's
Complaint against Director Stephens, Warden O'Hara,

and the John

Doe Infirmary Supervisor must be dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
III.

Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing,
filed

by

Nicholas

Allan

the court ORDERS that the Complaint

Beauregard

(Docket

Entry

No.

1)

is

DISMISSED with prejudice 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

transmission,

(1)

by

regular

the TDCJ

Austin,

Texas

-

mail,

facsimile

Office of the General Counsel,
78711,

Fax

Number

-8-

(512)

or

e-mail

P.O.

936-2159;

to:

Box 13084,

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 7th day of November, 2016.

7

SIM LAKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-9-