Benford v. Walker et al, No. 4:2010cv00570 - Document 18 (S.D. Tex. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER for Special Report. The Attorney General is further ORDERED to comply with Memorandum Opinion and Order for Special Report no later than 12/12/10.(Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(jegonzalez, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Benford v. Walker et al Doc. 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION GENE BENFORD, TDCJ-CID NO. 495065, Plaintiff, v. DENNIS WALKER, et a1 . , Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. H-10-0570 a MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FOR SPECIAL REPORT Gene Benford, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID), filed his civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that TDCJ- CID personnel were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by denying him insulin while he was assigned to the TDCJ-CID Estelle Unit near Huntsville, Texas. Benfordfs allegations are presented in a Complaint (Docket Entry No. 1) and a court-ordered more definite statement (Docket Entry No. 17), which indicate that Benford was diagnosed as a diabetic in 1998 while he was incarcerated in the TDCJ-CID Clements Unit near Amarillo, Texas. Benford claims that he requires insulin twice daily. Benford was transferred to the TDCJ-CID Estelle Unit on May 22, 2009, for medical reasons, and remained there until May 27, 2009, when he was transferred to the TDCJ-CID Hodge Unit. Dockets.Justia.com Benford alleges that he was denied insulin during stay Estelle and that his requests for insulin were denied because the medical personnel there believe that he had diabetes . Benford further alleges that he experienced hot flashes, sweating palms, and extreme thirst ( Docket Entry result of being denied insulin but that his requests for help were taken seriously . claims that he was g iven insulin 2009, after he was transferred out MaY Estelle . and the court ordered him to submit written answers allegations. specific questions regarding his See Cav v . Estelle, F .2d 886, 1986), citing Watson v. Ault, However, Benford not ( 5th ( 5th Cir. 1976). meaningful response, and the court issued two Orders to Show Cause ( Docket Entry Nos. 9 and 15) before Benford complied by submitting answers ( Docket Entry No. were also somewhat cryptic . which Benford's answers indicate that the named defendants were not aware that he had diabetes, which would negate his claim of deliberate indifference, which requires that he demonstrate that the defendants had actual knowledge of his medical condition. See Brewer v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 770 ( 5th 2009). Despite the shortcomings in Benford's pleadings, the court hesitant dism iss this action before making further inquiries into the nature of his comp laint . Propes v . Ouarterman, 573 F.3d 2009) ( nBriefs by pro az litigants are afforded liberal construction F .3d 358, citinq Johnson v . Quarterman, 2007). Liberally construed , Benford has p resented the following claims in his Complaint and more definite statement ( Docket Entry Nos. and 16) Benford suffers from insulin since 1998. diabetes and has required Benford was given insulin twice daily before being transferred to the Estelle Unit on May 22, 2009 . While at the Estelle Unit Benford was wrongly denied insulin from May 22, until May 27, 2009, when he was transferred to another unit . 4. When Benford did not get the insulin , he experienced hot flashes, sweaty palm s, and a craving for water . Benford was given insulin on May 27, 2009, after he was transferred out of Estelle . Benford's allegations appear be inconsistent because he alleges that TDCJ-CID has given him insulin since 1998 . he was denied However, when he was transferred to Estelle, which serves as a prison regional medical facility. See TDCJ-CID Website http://www. tdcn state. us/stat/unitdirectorv/ez. '. tx. htm. Benford's apparent mental state and allegations, the court finds that Benford's medical pertinent records records, light of seemingly contradictory would be prudent classification clarify the allegations. records, examine and other Therefore, the court ORDERS the Attorney General of the State of Texas to submit a special report containing following information : Benford's classification records and his medical history before and during incarceration in TDCJCID, specifically relating to his alleged diabetic condition . Benford's record of medical treatment wh ile incarcerated in TDCJ-CID, including but not limited to the period from May 1, 2009, to May 31, 2009 . Any affidavits or narratives that wou ld court in its analysis of the records . The Attorney General ORDERED copies policies, procedures, and records pertinent action . See Parker v . Carpenter, the any the issues in this F .2d 190, 191-92 1992), citin? Martinez v . Aaron, 1978)7 Cavr F .2d ( 5th ( 10th appropriate, 1986). the Attorney General's report should also include a sworn statement commenting on whether Benford has exhausted with respect claims . The Attorney General Memorandum available remedies Opinion further ORDERED Order comply with this Special Report ( nMemorandum Opinion and Order') no later than December 12, 2010. ' Benford is ORDERED correspondence opportunitv General . to not to submit anv m ore pleadinqs or to the court until after the court has had an review the records submitted bv the Attornev The Clerk shall provide a copy of Order to the plaintiff . The Clerk shall also send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, along ( Docket Entry No . Entry No . Memorandum Opinion and copies Complaint the Order for More Definite Statement ( Docket and the more definite statement ( Docket Entry No . to Jacqueline Lee Haney, Assistant Attorney General for the State Austin, of Texas, Texas 78711-2548, bv certified mail, return receipt recuested . SIGNED at Houston, Texasr on this day October, 2010. SIM LAKE UN ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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.
