Hampton v. Williams et al, No. 4:2009cv03519 - Document 23 (S.D. Tex. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support. Amended motion for summary judgment due within 30 days..(Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(hcarr, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hampton v. Williams et al Doc. 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION GARY HAMPTON, TDCJ-CID NO. 776384, Plaintiff, v. BETTY WILLIAMS, et al, Individual Employees of TDCJ § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. H-09-3519 5 § § 5 Defendants. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Gary Hampton, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID), filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that TDCJ-CID officials violated his constitutional rights. Defendants, TDCJ-CID medical personnel and correctional officers, have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 20), supported by records and affidavits, requesting that the court dismiss the Hampton's lawsuit in its entirety. For the reasons explained below, defendantsf motion will be granted except for Hampton' s retaliation claim against Cade Crippin for the April 2009 incident. Dockets.Justia.com History and Claims A. Factual History On July 19, 2008, Gary Hampton , an inmate in the Ellis Unit, injured his left knee when while attempting ladder retrieve folder off William s examined Hampton on August 2008 .2 unsuccessful arthrosporic surgery August 2008 .3 September shelfx Betty Hampton underwent repair the injury Follow-up surgery was originally scheduled for 2008 .4 However, this surgery was delayed for approximately 12 months .s Due to the delay , Hampton began requesting additional care his painfully swollen knee , subm itting communications W illiams over the course of the next year .6 Hampton received care lprisoner Civil Rights Complaint , Docket Entry No . 1, p . 4; Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support, Docket Entry No . 19, p . 1. zDe fendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support, Docket Entry No . 19, p . 13 . 3prisoner Civil Rights Comp laint , Docket Entry No . 1, p . 47 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support, Docket Entry No . 19, p . 1. lprisoner Civil Rights Complaint, Docket Entry No . p . 4. sDefendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support , Docket Entry No . 19, p . 1. 6 prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, Docket Entry No . - 2- p. 4. from various medical personnel, did not see William s again until August 18, 2009 .7 Frustrated the perceived indifference painful condition, Hampton wrote a letter to Shanta Crawford , the Medical Administrator On February the Ellis Unit, threatening her with a lawsuitx 2009, Hampton sent letter to Lannette Lithcum , UTMB Medical Director, complaining of the lack of care . On February and 2009, Sargents Cade Crippin, Irma Fernandezr Mueller entered Hampton 's and confiscated his medical lay-ins, records, and passes, and Smith Corona 2500 word processor, which Hampton claims contained pages on the negligence and deliberate indifference that he was planning to use file a suit against Williams, stored responded by filing alleging that Step its memory .g Hampton Grievance regarding this incident, was done retaliation letter- writing and preparation for a lawsuitxo Hampton later filed a Step Grievance expressing his dissatisfaction with the resolution of the Step Grievance .l l PDefendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support, Docket Entry No . 19, p . 13 . 8 prisoner civil Rights Complaint, Docket Entry No . 9Id .; Id . at 3 . z oyd at 1 yd 1 at p. 4. on April 16, 2009,1 Sargent Crippin entered Hampton's cell and 2 confiscated Hampton's medical boots, Wraps, and Crutchesx 3 Hampton responded by filing a Step Grievance regarding this incident, alleging that this act was done retaliation for his filing the February incident .n Grievances Hampton later filed Step 2 Grievance expressing his dissatisfaction with the resolution the Step B. Grievancexs Plaintiff 's Claim s Hampton b rings civil rights claims under against Cade Crippin , Irma Fernandez, Kenneth Gaston, and Eileen Kennedy. ( Docket Entry No . Betty Williams, Hampton Shanta alleges that Crawford , U .S . . 5 1983 C Unit deliberately indifferent in attending Physician Williams was his aftercare needs and Hplaintiff's More Definite Statement states that this incident occurred on March 22r 2009. Plaintiff's More Definite Statement, Docket Entry No . 9, p . 9. However, Hampton's Step 1 Grievance regarding this incident suggests that it occurred on April 16, 2009 . Prisoner Civil Rights Comp laint , Docket Entry No . 1, p . 14 . Considering that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice timestamp indicates that the Step 1 Grievance was received on April 22, 2009, id w it seems more likely than not that this incident occurred on April 16, 2009, as stated in the Step 1 Grievance , rather than on March 22, 2009, as stated in the Plaintiff's More Definite Statement . The court will consider the incident as occurring on April 16, 2009. Hplaintiff's More Definite Statement, Docket Entry No . 9-10. Mprisoner Civil Rights Comp laint , Docket Entry No . l . at p . 16. 5Id 9. negligent requesting medical treatment, that Medical Administrator Crawford failed to set up an appointment for him to see Williams and failed to reschedule an appointment UTMB, that Assistant Warden Gaston negligently failed to have the medical unit reschedule appointment with UTMB . Id . Hampton accuses Sargent Crippin of confiscating his medical records, notes, and work product related claims against Williams and of confiscating and destroying his Smith Corona 2500 word processor, retaliation filing February 2009 incident'l. 6 ' l also accuses claims against Williams ( uthe ( Docket Entry No. 1, Sargent Crippin confiscating supplies in retaliation for his filing 3). Hampton various medical grievance against Crippin for confiscating his medical records, notes, work product , and word processor (A 'the April 2009 incident'). ( ' Docket Entry No. l6 This allegation was properly exhausted through the administrative remedies available to Hampton . The Step 1 grievance that Hampton filed for the confiscation of medical records, notes, work product , and the word processor accuses Cripp in and Fernandez of confiscating these items in violation of nPD22 Rule 22a and rule 41 .' Docket Entry No . 1, p . 10. PD-22 Rule 41 concerns ' nDenial of Uniform Access to Courts,' and includes a prohibition on ' nretaliating against an offender for exercising the offender's right to file a grievance or comp laint .' TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRI ' MINAL Jusrl cE, PD-22 ( v. 12): GENE L RULES OF CO UCT AND DIS PLI ARY ACTI N RE M ND CI N O G U ID EL IN E s Fo R E M P LOY EE s 46, a v a i 1 ab 1 e http://www.tdcj.state.tx. us/vacancy/hr-policy/pd-zz. pdf at ( last visited Aug. 5, 2010). Hampton's Step 2 grievance filed for this incident specifically mentions that he construed the officers' actions as retaliatory . Docket Entry No . 1, p . 12 . Therefore , the allegation that Crippin and Fernandez acted in retaliation was exhausted through adm inistrative remedies . 5) Hampton accuses Sargent Fernandezu of assisting Sargent Crippin with the confiscation and destruction of the word processor during the February 2009 ineident. Finally, Hampton ( Docket Entry accuses Senior Warden Kennedy of failing investigate his retaliation complaint against Crippin and failing to have his prescribed medical supp lies returned . Id . II . Claims Against Crawford . Kennedy , and Gaston A. App licable Law 42 U . C . S. 1997e( states: a) nNo action shall brought with respect prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such adm inistrative remedies as are available are exhausted .' ' U.S.C. 5 1997e ( a). ( 2006) ( emphasis added). ' A) prisoner must comp lete the administrative review process 'E in accordance with the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit Woodford v. Nqo, 2378, 2384 ( 2006). federal court .' ' ' Flailure 'E Usargent Fernandez appears to have been a Lieutenant at the time of the original filing . Fernandez is described in the grievance Hampton filed regarding the incident as 'his E ' crippin#s) lt ( Fema1e).' Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, ' p . 10 . - 6- exhaust is an affirmative defense z ' Jones v . Bock, 127 S . Ct . 910, 921 ( 2007). In Texas, an inmate must follow the two-step grievance process exhaust administrative remedies . APPX. Johnson v . Ford, 261 Fed . 2008) ( citing Johnson v . Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 515 ( 5th Cir . 2004)). The Step 1 grievance, which must be filed within fifteen days of the complained-of incident, within the prisoner 's facility . handled Johnson , 385 F .3d at TEXAS DEP MENT OF CRIMI ART NAL JUSTI CE, OFF ER ORIE ATI HAND END NT ON BOOK 52 ( Nov . 2004), available at http ://www.tdcj.state .tx. us/publications/cid/ OffendorientHbkNovo4. pdf ( last visited Aug. adverse decision Step Step 2010). prisoner has ten days to file grievance, which is handled at the state level. 385 F .3d at After an Johnson , TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, SuD ra, prisoner must pursue a grievance through b0th steps for considered exhausted.' ' Johnson, 385 F.3d at 515. approach' is taken to the exhaustion requirement . ' Appx. at 755 ( quoting Davs v. Johnson, to be ' A) strict '( Ford, F.3d 863, Fed . ( 5th Cir. 2003). B. Application of the Law to Claim s Hampton has not filed Crawford , Gaston . Step Because grievance against Kennedy, Hampton has exhausted administrative remedies against these parties, summary judgment will be granted as to his claims against them . 111 . Claims Acainst W illiams A. Applicable Law ' Dqeliberate U indifference to serious medical needs prisoners constitutes the 'unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain' proscribed by the Eighth Amendment. ( Dleliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious illness or injury states cause of action under 5 1983 .' Estelle v . Gamb le , 97 ' ( 976) 1 285, nE squbjective recklessness as used in the criminal 1aw the test for ' deliberate indifference' under the Eighth Amendment.' ' Farmer v. Brennan, 114 1970, 1980 ( 1994). Deliberate indifference , an nextremely high standard to meetz' ' requires the prisoner to demonstrate that the officials nrefused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly , or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical needs .' Domino ' v . Tex . Dept. of Crim. Justice, 239 F. 752, 756 ( 3d 5th Cir. 2001). The doctrine officials nfrom conduct does qualified violate clearly inquiries' . government estab lished statutory which a reasonable person would have Harlow v. Fitzcerald, 102 Resolving protects liab ility for civil damages insofar as their constitutional rights known .' ' immunity 2727, 2738 ( 1982). qualified immunity defense requires answering two whether, the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, the facts alleged show the official's conduct - 8- violated a constitutional right and ( whether the right at issue 2) was nclearly established' ' the time of defendant 's alleged misconduct, such that it would be clear to a reasonable official that his conduct was unlawful Saucier v . Katz, the situation he confronted . 2151, 2156 ( 2001) ( overruled on other grounds). Either inquiry may be addressed first nin light of the circumstances the p articular case hand .' ' Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808, 818 ( 2009). firmly estab lished that negligent or m istaken medical treatment judgment does not implicate the E Elighth E mendment Al and does not provide the basis v. Hampton, a civil rights action .' Graves ' F.3d 315, 319 ( 5th Cir. 1993) ( abrogated on other grounds). B. App lication of Law to Claim s Even when interpreting the facts related Williams's attendance to Hampton's aftercare needs in the light most favorab le to Hampton , the court concludes that her conduct was not done with the subjective recklessness required demonstrate udeliberate indifference,' and thus did not violate Hampton's Eighth Amendment ' right to be free of unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain . Hampton alleges that Williams's failure to examine him during the period time following indifference .' ' surgery constituted ndeliberate While Williams concedes that she did not examine Hampton for period time between August 2008, and August 18, 2009,18 Hampton 's medical records indicate that the Ellis medical staff was generally attentive problems, responding Hampton's knee approximately nineteen requests treatment by prescribing painkillersz g fitting Hampton knee braces and crutchesrz and providing wraps for the joint.z Even o l though Williams not attend Hampton during this period time, because he was receiving ample care from other providers for his knee during this time, court concludes that fact William s did not examine Hampton does not indicate that her conduct was nsubjectively reckless.' ' Thus, William s entitled qualified immunity for claims arising from her failure to examine Hampton, so summary judgment be granted. Hampton also alleges that Williams delayed his follow-up appointments and surgery, and recklessness .' ' But Williams delay constituted usubjective has no authority to schedule appointments or surgery , as her authority as a unit level physician l 8Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support, Docket Entry No . 19, p . 13 . l gplaintiff's Medical Records from TDCJ Health Services Archive with Business Records Affidavit ( sealed), Docket Entry No. 21, Document 21-1, p .5; id . at Document 21-2, p . 17; id . at Document 21-4, p . 1; id . at Document 21-4, p . 6. 2 0Id . at Document 21-3, p . 23 . 2 lId . at Document 21-2, p . 20 . only permits her request referrals these matters.2 2 Furthermore , the catastrophic dam age caused by Hurricane Ike shut down UTMB until January 2009,2 which caused Hampton 's appointments 3 and surgery to be delayed . The court concludes that Williams was delaying nsubjectively reckless' ' Hampton's follow-up appointments and surgery because she had no authority to schedule these matters and because Hurricane Ike accounted for the delay . Thus, Williams is entitled to qualified immunity for claims arising from her alleged delay of Hampton's follow-up appointments and surgery, so summary judgment will be granted. Finally, Hampton alleges that Williams was negligent requesting medical treatment. But these claims do not provide a cause of action under section 1983 because negligence ndoes not implicate the E Elighth E mendment and does not provide the basis Aq for a civil rights action .' ' Graves, - - F .3d at 319 . Summary judgment will therefore be granted as to a11 of Hampton's claims against Williams . 2 . at Exhib it E , Affidavit of Bryan Hicks, p . 2Id 2azd at p . IV . A. Claims Acainst Fernandez and Crippin Applicable Law state a valid claim for retaliation under section 1983, prisoner must allege specific constitutional right, defendant 's intent to retaliate against the prisoner for his or her exercise that retaliatory right, adverse The inmate must allege more than causation . the victim belief that he retaliation . act, and personal Mere conclusionary allegations of retaliation will not be enough to withstand a proper motion for dism issal of the claim . The inmate must p roduce direct evidence of motivation or, the more probable scenario , Aallege a chronology events from which inferred .r' ' retaliation may plausib ly be Jones v. Grenincer, 188 F.3d 322, 324-25 ( 5th 1999) ( citations omitted). The doctrine officials conduct 'from ' does of liability clearly inquiries: protects government established statutory which a reasonab le person would have Harlow v . Fitzaerald , Resolving immunity civil damages insofar as their violate constitutional rights known ' ' qualified 2727, 2738 ( 1982). qualified immunity defense requires answering two whether, asserting the injury, the light most favorable to the party facts alleged show the official's conduct violated a constitutional right and whether the right at issue was uclearly established' at the time of defendant 's alleged ' misconduct, such that it would be clear to a reasonable official that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted . Saucier v . Katz, 2151, 2156 ( 2001) ( overruled on other grounds). Either inquiry may be addressed first uin light of the circumstances Callahan, 129 B. in the particular case hand .' ' Pearson v. Ct. 808, 818 ( 2009). Application of the Law to Claim s Due to the February 2009 Incident Hampton has failed to produce direct evidence of motivation or allege a chronology of events from which retaliation by Crippin or Fernandez could be inferred . Hampton alleges that prior his writing of letters to Lanette Lithcum and Williams he never had any problems with correctional officers disrupting legal work, despite having been on the unit for 13 years.z Hampton 's reliance d on the sequence of events does not support the inference of intent to retaliate on the part of Crippin and Fernandez for Hampton's writing of these letters . F.3d 885, plaintiff's 888-89 alleged See Eulow v . Tishom inqo Countv, Missw ( 5th Cir. sequence of 1995) events, ( concluding that controverted the the defendants, did not support an inference of retaliatory intent). Therefore, summary judgment for Hampton's claims against Fernandez M plaintiff's More Definite Statement, Docket Entry 11 . - 13- 9, and Hampton 's claims against Crippin for the Feb ruary 2009 incident will be granted . C. Application of the Law to Claim s Against Crippin Due to the April 2009 Incidentz s Crippin not moved summary judgment on this claim. crippin's answer asserts the defense of qualified immunity against all c1aims .26 Determining whether this defense applies to the April 2009 incident requires answering two inquiries : whether, the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, the facts alleged show the official 's conduct violated a constitutional right and ( whether the right at issue was 'clearly established' at the 2) ' ' time of defendant 's alleged misconduct, such that it would be clear reasonable official that h is conduct was unlawful the situation he con fronted . The right of inmates to access the courts nclearly establishedz' for nEilt has long been recognized that ' prisoners generally enjoy the constitutional right of access to the court.' Jones, 188 F.3d at 325 ( ' citing Bounds v. Smith, 1491, 1494-95 (1977)) light most favorable Thus, the key question whether, the Hampton, the facts alleged show that M Fernandez was not involved in the April 2009 incident . z6 Defendants Williams, Demand, Docket Entry No . 12, Original Answer and Jury - 14- Crippin's conduct constituted retaliation , thereby violating Hampton's right of access to the court . retaliation claim under section 1983 requires alleging : a specific constitutional right, retaliate against the prisoner right, ( 3) the defendant 's intent his or her exercise of that retaliatory adverse act, and ( causation. Hampton 4) has alleged constitutional right of access was impeded . Hampton has also alleged facts specific enough to support a finding that Crippin's conduct during the April 2009 incident was intended to retaliate against Hampton for exercising that right ; Hampton alleged that Crippin stated ( Tlhat he would make my life miserable as long as I was trying to file on h im in a town he owned the courts in and if I continued , he would have me shipped to West Texas and placed on a gang farm/unit where I'd suffer everydayg ) instead of staying here where I could finish 1 college .' , ' Hampton has alleged retaliatory adverse acts the confiscation of his crutches, medical wrap s, medical boots, and a11 p roperty papers .28 These acts were adverse because Hampton was suffering from a knee injury. The confiscation of medical supplies that would ease the symptoms the injury would increase suffering , and the confiscation of the property papers would impede z Rplaintiff's More Definite Statement, Docket Entry No . 9, p . 10 . z8 prisoner Civil Rights Complaintr Docket Entry No . Hampton's ability to recover these supplies . Interpreting the facts in the light most favorab le to Hampton, Hampton's exercise of his right of access caused the confiscation of these items . Hampton confronted Crippin threatening responded about confiscation , when Crippin have Hampton nshipped' ' desirable location should Hampton continue to less grievances against Crippin,29 it is reasonable to infer that the confiscation also was caused by the filing grievances against Crippin . Furthermore , Hampton 's medical records indicate that he had been issued these medical supplies treat Crippin has the possess these items . inference that he had a right knee, leading Since addressed this claim in his motion summary judgment and because plaintiff's allegations are sufficient defense Ove rcom e qualified immunity with respect Hampton's retaliation claim against Crippin arising from the April 2009 incident, summary judgment on that claim will be denied. IV . Conclusion and Order For the reasons explained above, the court ORDERS the following : Defendants Williams, Craw ford , Fernandez, Gaston, and Kennedy's Motion for Summary Judgment ( Docket Entry No. 19) is GRANTED . 2 .; Plaintiff's More Definite Statement, Docket Entry No . 9Id p . 10. - 16- Defendant Crippin 's Motion for Summary Judgment for Hampton's retaliation claim for the February 2009 incident is GRANTED . Defendant Cripp in 's Motion for Summary Judgment for Hampton 's retaliation claim for the April 2009 incident is DEN IED . Defendant Crippin's shall file an Amended Motion for Summary Judgment within thirty days of the date of this Order if he determ ines that such a motion is approp riate . If Crippin concludes that a motion for summary judgment is not appropriate, he will advise the court within thirty days of the date of this Order . SIGNED at Houston , Texas, on this day of ust, 2010. f SIM LAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE - 17-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
