Woods v. Collier et al
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Absent a showing that his constitutional rights were violated as the result of a defective training program implemented by Executive Director Collier or Warden Bowers, 15 Woods does not state a viable claim under 7; 1983. Accordingly, the claims against Executive Director Collier and Warden Bowers will be dismissed. Because Woods has not articulated a valid claim, the Complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Based on the foregoing , the court ORDERS as follows: 1. The 1 Prisoner's Civil Rights Complaint under 42U.S. C. § 1983 filed by Bolderick Woods is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 2. The dismissal will count as a STRIKE for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)...*** Email sent to Manager of Three Strikes List. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (sra4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 27, 2024
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
BOLDERICK WOODS,
TDCJ #2351011,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
v.
BRYAN COLLIER, et al.,
Defendants.
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-23-1643
MEMORANDUM OPINION ANO ORDER
The plaintiff, Bolderick Woods (TDCJ #2351011), has filed a
Prisoner's
Civil
Rights
Complaint
under
42
U.S.C.
§
1983
("Complaint") ( Docket Entry No. 1), alleging that he was denied
adequate medical care while confined
the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division ("TDCJ"). He
has also filed Plaintiff['s) More Definite Statement ("Plaintiff's
MOS") (Docket Entry No. 13),
about his claims.
which provides additional details
Because Woods is incarcerated, the court is
required by the Prison
tigation Reform Act ("PLRA") to scrutinize
the pleadings and dismiss the case if it
rmines that the action
is (1) "frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted;
or (2) seeks monetary rel
defendant who is immune from such relief."
f from a
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
When Woods filed his Complaint he was incarcerated by TDCJ at
the Wynne Unit in Huntsville. 1
confined
at
the
Hamilton
Since June 6, 2023, he has been
Unit. 2
Woods
sues
defendants for violations of his civil rights:
Executive
Director
Bryan
Collier;
the
(1) TDCJ; (2) TDCJ
Warden
( 3)
following
R.
Bowers;
( 4) University of Texas Medical Branch - Correctional Managed
Health Care ("UTMB-CMHC"}; and (5) the State of Texas. 3
Woods explains that he was diagnosed with Type II diabetes in
2019. 4
Woods
reports
that
he
receives
twice
daily
insulin
injections, one in the morning and one in the evening, to treat
this condition. 5
Woods alleges that he was hos pitali zed from
January 31, 2023, to February 5, 2023, 6 because he missed several
doses of insulin. 7
Woods estimates that he did not receive his
insulin injections for three or four days between November of 2022
Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3.
For purposes of
identification, all page numbers reference the pagination imprinted
on each docket entry by the court's Electronic Case Filing ("ECF"}
system.
1
Plaintiff's MOS,
Question 3) .
2
Docket Entry No.
13,
Plaintiff's MOS, Docket Entry No. 13,
Questions 4 ( a), ( C) , and ( d)).
4
Id. at 4 (Response to Question
7) .
Id. at 5 (Response to Question 8 (a)).
6
7
1
(Response to
Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3.
3
5
p.
Id. at 2 (Response to Ques
on 5) .
-2-
p. 2
(Responses to
and February of 2023,
missing a total of six to eight doses. 8
According to a grievance attached to the Complaint, Woods missed
these doses while he was assigned to the Wynne Unit Trusty Camp. 9
He reportedly suffered dry mouth,
dizziness,
vomiting,
upset
stomach, and a loss of "body function" when his blood sugar level
reached 580. 10
He was placed on a "Breathing Machine" with a
diagnosis of "Hyperglycemia" and was treated with IV medicine. 11
Woods accuses the defendants of "medical neglect" for
iling
to provide him with adequate care in violation of the Eighth
Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. 12
seeks
"$100
million"
He
in damages from each defendant for the
violation of his civil rights. 13
II.
Standard of Review
The PLRA requires federal district courts to screen prisoner
complaints to identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint
if
is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
reli
may be granted.
8
See Crawford-El v. Britton, 118 S. Ct.
at 3 (Response to Question 6(e)).
tep 1 Offender Grievance Form, Grievance
attached to Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 6.
10
Plaintiff's MDS, Docket Entry No. 13,
Questions 6(b) and (c)).
p. 3 (Responses to
11
Id. at 5 (Responses to Questions 8(c) and
12
Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3.
1
3
Id. at 4.
-3-
i2023067680,
(d)).
1584,
1596
(1998)
(summarizing provisions found in the PLRA,
including the requirement that district courts screen prisoners'
complaints and summarily dismiss frivolous, malicious, or meritless
actions); see also Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1761-62
(2015) (discussing the screening provision found in the federal in
forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2), and reforms enacted
by
PLRA that were "'designed to
1 ter out the bad claims
[filed by prisoners] and facilitate consideration of the good'")
(quoting Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 914 (2007)) (alteration in
original).
A complaint is frivolous if
either in law or in fact.'"
"'lacks an arguable basis
Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728,
1733 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831
(1989)).
"A compla
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 1
does not exist."
1999)
interest which clearly
Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 718 (5th Cir.
(internal quotation marks and
tations
omitted).
"A
complaint lacks an arguable basis in
if, after providing the
plaintiff
the
additional
necessary,
the facts alleged are clearly baseless."
opportunity
to
present
facts
when
Talib v.
Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).
conducting this review the court is mindful that the p
pro
In
ntiff's
pleadings are subject to a less stringent standard than
-4-
those drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596
(1972) (per curiam).
To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, the factual
allegations in the complaint "must be enough to raise a right to
above the speculative level[.]"
rel
Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007) {citation omitted).
If the
complaint has not set forth "enough facts to state a claim to
rel
f that is plaus
on its face,"
must be dismissed.
Id.
at 1974. A reviewing court must "'accept all well-pleaded facts as
true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.'"
2020)
"con
Heinze v. Tesco Corp., 971 F.3d 475, 479 (5th Cir.
(citation omitted).
But it need not accept as true any
usory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal
conclusions."
Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted);
see also White v. U.S. Corrections, L.L.C., 996 F.3d 302, 307 (5th
Cir. 2021) (same).
In other words, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice."
Ashcroft v. Igbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937,
1949 (2009) (citing Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1965).
III.
A.
Discussion
Claims Against the State of Texas, TDCJ, and UTMB-CMHC
Unless expressly waived, the Eleventh Amendment bars an action
in
ral court by a citizen of a state against his own state,
including a state agency.
See Will v. Michigan Dep' t of State
-5-
Police, 109
s. Ct. 2304, 2309 (1989); Daniel v. University of Texas
Southwestern Medical Center, 960 F.3d 253, 256 (5th
2020)
("Pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, a state's sovereign immunity
in federal court extends to private suits against state agencies,
state departments,
and other arms of the state.")
(citations
omitted). Texas has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity and
Congress did not abrogate that immunity when it enacted 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.
See NiGen Biotech, L.L.C. v. Paxton, 804 F.3d 389, 394
(5th Cir. 2015) (citing Quern v. Jordan, 99 S. Ct. 1139, 1145
(1979)).
As a result, Woods' suit against the State of Texas must
be dismissed as barred by Eleventh Amendment.
Likewise, TDCJ and UTMB-CMHC, which is part of UTMB, are state
agencies that are immune from a civil-rights suit in federal court.
See Loya v. Texas Department of Corrections, 878 F.2d 860, 861 (5th
Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (" [TDCJ's] entitlement to immunity under
the
[E]leventh
circuit.");
Galveston,
[A]mendment
Lewis
665
v.
F.3d
is
clearly
University
625,
630
established
of Texas
(5th
Cir.
Medical
2011)
in
this
Branch
(per
at
curiam)
(concluding that UTMB is a state agency entitled to Eleventh
Amendment immunity from suit).
Accordingly, Woods' claims against
TDCJ and UTMB-CMHC also must be dismissed.
B.
The Claims Against Collier and Bowers
Woods sues Executive Director Coll
and Warden Bowers for
failing to adequately train and supervise medical staff at the
-6 -
Wynne Unit.H
To prevail on a failure-to-train claim under§ 1983,
a plaintiff must demonstrate that:
"'(1) the supervisor either
failed to supervise or train the subordinate official; (2) a causal
1
k exists between the failure to train or supervise and the
violation of the plaintiff's rights; and (3) the failure to train
or supervise amounts to deliberate indifference.'"
Goodman v.
Harris County, 571 F.3d 388, 395 (5th Cir. 2009); Estate of Davis
ex rel. McCully v. City of North Richland Hills, 406 F. 3d 375, 381
(5th Cir. 2005).
"In order for liability to attach based on an
inadequate training claim, a plaintiff must allege with specificity
how a particular training program is defective."
Trammell v.
Fruge, 868 F.3d 332, 345 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
Additionally, to show that the failure to
train amounted to deliberate indifference by the defendant, a
plaintiff
"usually must demonstrate a pattern of violations,"
rather than a single incident.
Id. (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
Woods does not allege facts showing that Executive Director
Collier or Warden Bowers had any involvement with his medical care
or that either official was responsible for training medical
providers.
Likewise, he does not allege facts describing how any
particular training program was defective.
A defendant cannot be
Plaintiff's MDS, Docket Entry No. 13, p. 6 (Response to
Question 9(a)).
14
-7
held liable based on general allegations that an injury could have
been prevented if employees had received better or additional
training.
See Roberts v. City of Shreveport, 397 F.3d 287, 293
(5th Cir. 2005).
Absent a showing that his constitutional rights
were violated as the result
of a defective
training program
implemented by Executive Director Collier or Warden Bowers, 15 Woods
does not state a viable claim under§ 1983. See Trammell, 868 F.3d
at 345. Accordingly, the claims against Executive Director Collier
and Warden Bowers will be dismissed.
Because Woods has not
articulated a valid claim, the Complaint will be dismissed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b}.
IV.
Conclusion and Order
Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows:
1.
The Prisoner's Civil Rights Complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 filed by Bolderick Woods (Docket
Entry No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
2.
The dismissal will count as a STRIKE for purposes
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Woods' allegations of "medical neglect" do not rise to the
level of a constitutional violation of the Eighth Amendment. The
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard is an "extremely
high n one to meet. Domino v. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice, 239
F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001).
Allegations of negligence or
malpractice do not constitute the requisite deliberate indifference.
See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006); see also
Delaughter v. Woodall, 909 F.3d 130, 136 (5th Cir. 2018) (claims
based on unsuccessful medical treatment, negligence, or medical
malpractice are insufficient to show deliberate indifference). For
this additional reason, Woods has failed to state a claim for which
relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
15
-8-
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum
The Clerk will also send a
Opinion and Order to the plaintiff.
copy of
this Order to the Manager of Three Strikes List at
Three_Strikes@txs.uscourts.gov.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the 27th day of March, 2024.
7
SIM LAKE
SENIOR 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?