Bettes v. MTC - Management Training Corporation et al

Filing 6

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that the Court DISMISS with Prejudice as Frivolous Bettes' 5 Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Andrew W. Austin. (klw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
STEVEN HAROLD BETTES
V.
MTC-MANAGEMENT TRAINING
CORPORATION, WARDEN GREG
SHIRLEY, and MAINTENANCE
SUPERVISOR MR. LANDS

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

A-14-CA-815-LY

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TO:

THE HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Magistrate Judge submits this Report and Recommendation to the District Court

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Rule 1(f) of Appendix C of the Local Court Rules of the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to
United States Magistrates, as amended, effective December 1, 2002.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has been granted leave
to proceed in forma pauperis.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
At the time he filed his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff was on parole and
residing at the Cheyenne Center in Houston, Texas. Plaintiff was previously confined in the Kyle
Unit operated by Management Training Corporation.
Plaintiff alleges he slipped and fell in water in his cell at the Kyle Unit on July 25, 2014.
Plaintiff complains water from the mechanical room came into his cell under the door. According
to Plaintiff, he was transported to the hospital via ambulance and was diagnosed with a sprained back

and contusions. Plaintiff seeks $1 million in compensatory damages, $1 million in punitive
damages, and a declaratory judgment.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
A.

Standard Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)

An in forma pauperis proceeding may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
if the court determines the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from suit. A dismissal
for frivolousness or maliciousness may occur at any time, before or after service of process and
before or after the defendant’s answer. Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1119 (5th Cir. 1986).
When reviewing a plaintiff’s complaint, the court must construe plaintiff’s allegations as
liberally as possible. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). However, the petitioner’s pro se status
does not offer him “an impenetrable shield, for one acting pro se has no license to harass others, clog
the judicial machinery with meritless litigation and abuse already overloaded court dockets.”
Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986).
B.

Personal Injury Claims

A plaintiff may maintain a civil rights suit only if he can show an abuse of government power
that rises to a constitutional level. Love v. King, 784 F.2d 708, 712 (5th Cir. 1986); Williams v.
Kelley, 624 F.2d 695, 697 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1019 (1981). The Supreme Court
has held that many acts that might constitute a violation of state tort law do not amount to
constitutional violations. Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 146 (1979). See also, Lewis v. Woods,
848 F.2d 649, 651 (5th Cir. 1988). It is well settled that negligence on the part of jail officials does
not give rise to civil rights claims. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986); Marsh v. Jones, 53
2

F.3d 707, 712 (5th Cir. 1995); Simmons v. Poppell, 837 F.2d 1243, 1244 (5th Cir. 1988). In
Daniels, the Supreme Court held that claims originating from a jailer leaving a pillow on the floor
and a prisoner slipping and falling over the pillow constitutes a state tort claim for negligence and
does not amount to a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To the extent Plaintiff complains
of his slip and fall, Plaintiff’s allegations at most amount to a state claim of negligence, which is not
cognizable under § 1983.
RECOMMENDATION
It is therefore recommended that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice as
frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
It is further recommended that the Court include within its judgment a provision expressly
and specifically warning Plaintiff that filing or pursuing any further frivolous lawsuits may result in
(a) the imposition of court costs pursuant to Section 1915(f); (b) the imposition of significant
monetary sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; (c) the imposition of an order barring Plaintiff
from filing any lawsuits in this Court without first obtaining the permission from a District Judge
of this Court or a Circuit Judge of the Fifth Circuit; or (d) the imposition of an order imposing some
combination of these sanctions.
OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days after receipt of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve and file
written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636
(b)(1)(C). Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained
within this report within 14 days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from de novo review by
the district court of the proposed findings and recommendations and from appellate review of factual
3

findings accepted or adopted by the district court except on grounds of plain error or manifest
injustice. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc); Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148 (1985); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-277 (5th Cir. 1988).
To the extent that a party has not been served by the Clerk with this Report and
Recommendation electronically, pursuant to the CM/ECF procedures of this District, the Clerk is
ORDERED to mail such party a copy of this Report and Recommendation by certified mail, return
receipt requested.
SIGNED this 5th day of September, 2014.

_____________________________________
ANDREW W. AUSTIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4