Jensen v. Thaler, Director of TDCJ-ID et al, No. 4:2013cv02390 - Document 25 (S.D. Tex. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 24 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion to Dismiss, granting 20 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1) and Brief in Support. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION MARTIN B. JENSEN, TDCJ NO. 698669, § § § Plaintiff, § § v. § § RICK THALER, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division; BETTY WILLIAMS, Ellis Unit Physician, State Classification Committee, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division; and UNIVERSITY of TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH AT GALVESTON, § § § § § § § § § § § § Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-2390 § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Martin B. Jensen, a former prisoner at the Ellis Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Division ("TDCJ -CID") , ("Complaint") filed a Correctional Prisoner Civil Institutions Rights (Docket Entry No.3) under 42 U.S.C. § Complaint 1983 alleging that he was denied adequate medical care by TDCJ-CID Director Rick Thaler, Ellis Unit Physician Dr. Betty Williams, and The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston ("UTMB"). UTMB and Director Thaler have filed Defendants UTMB and Thaler's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. Support R. civ. P. 12 (b) (6) ("Motion to Dismiss") and 12 (b) (1) (Docket Entry No. and Brief in 20). For the reasons explained below 1 UTMB and Director Thaler's motion will be granted. I. Jensen is a Procedural History former inmate of TDCJ-CID who is currently on medical parole for a life sentence. 1 the United States District Texas § 1 Court After filing his Complaint in for the Northern District of his case was transferred to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1406(a).2 The court ordered Jensen "to submit a more definite statement of the facts involved in this action" so that the court can properly evaluate the merits of the case. 3 In compliance Jensen filed Plaintiff/s More Definite Statement ("More Definite Statement,,).4 1 UTMB and Director Thaler responded by filing their pending Motion to Dismiss. 5 Jensen responded to the Motion to Dismiss with Plaintiff/s Motion for Continuance to Answer States [sic] Counsel for Motion to Dismiss Against Divisions Which Are Defendants in the Above Cause Number ("Motion for Continuance ll ), requesting an additional thirty days to file his answer because of medical hardship.6 lComplaint, Docket Entry No.3, p. 8. 2Transfer Order l Docket Entry No. 9 1 pp. 2-3. 30 r der for More Definite Statement, Docket Entry No. 121 p. 1. 4More Definite Statement 1 Docket Entry No. 13. 5Motion to Dismiss, Docket Entry No. 20. 6Motion for Continuance, Docket Entry No. 24, pp. 1-2. -2- II. Jensen's Claims Jensen alleges that his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated while he was in the custody of TDCJ -CID. 7 His allegations are summarized in the following narrative: Jensen suffers from a bone infection known as osteomyelitis ("condition").8 Jensen's condition was discovered in his left knee around January 28, knee early treatment, in 2011,9 and he received two operations on that the year to remove the infection. 10 After Jensen was assigned to the Ellis Unit of TDCJ during July of 2011.11 He alleges that he complained of back and rib pain similar to the pain he experienced in his kneei the Ellis Unit Physician, Dr. Betty Williams, ordered x-rays to be taken. 12 further his alleges that Dr. Williams ignored the Jensen radiologist's recommendations based on the x-rays and that his condition began to worsen. 13 After filing a medical grievance in October of 2011 that was found to have merit, Jensen was taken to the UTMB orthopedic 7Complaint, Docket Entry No.3, p. 1. 8More Definite Statement, Docket Entry No. 13, p. 13. 9Id. at 14. 10Id. at 4. l1Complaint, Docket Entry No.3, p. 4. 12 I d . at 4 - 5 . 13Id. at 5. -3- department for further evaluation. 14 He was told by UTMB on October 13, 2011, that he would later receive a bone scan and an appointment with the infectious disease Jensen cl inic. 15 saw Dr. Williams again on October 21, 2011; he alleges that she ignored the UTMB evaluation and gave him a prescription for Motrin, a medication to which he is allergic. 16 The next day, October 22, 2011, Jensen alleges that he lost all feeling in and control of his legs. 17 Since that day was on a weekend, Jensen alleges that the superintendent called Dr. Williams at home. 18 He alleges that the superintendent told him that Dr. Williams believed that he was faking his symptoms and had him placed In October 24, solitary 2011. 19 confinement without any medical aid until When Dr. Williams returned to the prison on October 24, she diagnosed Jensen with a spinal cord compression and called for emergency medical services. 20 Conroe Medical Center where Jensen was taken to the neurosurgery was performed on his spinal column; he later learned that despite the surgery, he would l4Id. l6Id.; More Definite Statement, Docket Entry No. 13, p. 6. 17Complaint, Docket Entry No.3, p. 6. 19Id.; More Definite Statement, Docket Entry No. 13, p. 7. 2°Complaint, Docket Entry No.3, Statement, Docket Entry No. 13, p. 8. -4- pp. 6-7; More Definite remain a paraplegic and face a risk of death if the infection returned. 21 After his surgery Jensen was housed in the Estelle Unit's Regional Medical Facility until he was given medical parole on March 23, 2012, and transferred to a long-term care facility.22 Since that time Jensen alleges he has undergone multiple medical procedures in connection with his condition and paralysis that have caused him substantial pain and suffering including reoccurring infection, blood flow treatment, and catheter discomfort. 23 resul t cystoscopy, urodynamic studies, He also alleges mental anguish as a of his current physical state and the care he requires. 24 Accordingly, Jensen requests compensatory and punitive damages for his injuries. 25 Jensen alleges that Director Thaler violated his civil rights by failing to classification monitor systems the of grievance, TDCJ-CID safety, from July medical, 12, October 24, 2011, while his condition deteriorated. 26 2011, and to He alleges that Dr. Williams was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs 21Complaint, Docket Entry No.3, p. 7 i More Definite Statement, Docket Entry No. 13, p. 15. 22Complaint, Docket Entry No.3, pp. 7-8. 23More Definite Statement, Docket Entry No. 13, pp. 9-11. 24More Definite Statement, Docket Entry No. 13, p. 11. 25Complaint, Docket Entry No.3, p. 14. 26More Definite Statement, Docket Entry No. 13, p. 4. -5- during the same period. 27 his civil rights Jensen further alleges that UTMB violated because it did not immediately treat him on October 13, 2011, after he tested positive for infection. 28 Jensen seeks compensatory and punitive damages for his injuries. 29 III. 42 U.S.C. enforce Analysis 1983 provides a mechanism for private parties to § federally protected statutory or constitutional See Rehberg against defendants who act under color of state law. v. Paulk, 132 S. Ct. 1497, 1501 protections it offers, however, § (2012) rights Despite the broad 1983 is not meant to effect a radical departure from ordinary tort law and common-law immunities applicable omitted). in tort Id. suits. at 1502 (internal citations Immunities well grounded in history and reason are not eliminated by covert inclusion in the general language of Id. § 1983. (internal quotations and citations omitted) . Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only power authorized by Constitution and statute. 133 S. Ct. 1059, establishing 1064 (2013). subj ect -matter 286 (5th Cir. 2012). A plaintiff bears the burden of jurisdiction. Formaldehyde Prods. Liab. Litig. Gunn v. Minton, In re FEMA Trailer (Miss. Plaintiffs), 668 F.3d 281, A party may challenge by motion the sUbject- 27Id. at 4-8. 28Id. at 9. 29Complaint, Docket Entry No.3, p. 14. -6- matter jurisdiction of the court to entertain a claim. Civ. P. under 12(b)(1). Rule 12(b) (1) a claim See Fed. R. is properly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the claim. statutory or constitutional power to adj udicate In re FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Prods. Liab. Litig. Plaintiffs), 668 F.3d at 286. the (Miss. The court has the power to dismiss a claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on the basis of the complaint itself, the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced record, in the or the complaint supplemented by the undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of the disputed facts. Sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional issue. Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Parish Council-President Gov't, 279 F.3d 273, 280 (5th Cir. 2002). A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (a) (2) that the pleader is Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is a defense that may be asserted by motion. Fed. authorized by Rule 12 (b) (6) dispositive issues of law. 1832 (1989) (internal R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6) . A court is to dismiss a claim on the basis of Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, citations omitted). When considering a motion to dismiss a claim under Rule 12(b) (6), all allegations are assumed to be true whether or not they are doubtful in fact. Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). Bell Unless the allegations show that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim -7- upon which relief can be granted, the court will not grant a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) (6). 774 (5th Cir. 1999) Spivey v. Robertson, 197 F.3d 772, Courts, however, (internal citations omitted) do not accept as true threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported by statements that are merely conclusory. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, Rule 12(b) (6) 129 S. Ct. 1937, motion, 1949 (2009). In reviewing a the court will not look beyond the face of the pleadings to determine whether relief should be granted based on the alleged facts. 216 n.3 omitted) . (5th Cir. Only a Public Citizen, Inc. v. Bomer, 274 F.3d 212, 2001) (internal complaint that states relief survives a motion to dismiss. A. quotations a and citations plausible claim for Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950. state Sovereign Immunity Eleventh Amendment 30 jurisprudence is well-established: Suits in federal court by citizens of a state against their own state or a state agency or department are barred. Richardson v. Southern University, 118 F.3d 450, 452 (5th Cir. 1997). Congress is able to abrogate state sovereign immunity by legislative means, intent to abrogate the states' but its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit must be unequivocally expressed and the abrogation itself must be pursuant to a valid exercise of power. See Seminole Tribe of 30The Eleventh Amendment states: "The judicial power United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects Foreign State." U.s. Const. amend. XI. -8- of the in law States of any F I a. v . Florida, 116 S. Ct. 1114, 112 3 (1996). Congress has not waived state sovereign immunity for § of Tex. 665 F.3d 625, 2011). Med. Branch at Galveston, As a result, § 1983 suits. Lewis v. Univ. 630 (5th Cir. 1983 claims for monetary damages against the state and its officials are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Alegria (0' v. Connor, Williams, 314 F. App'x A state may, J.). consenting to suit. 687, however, 693 (5th waive its Cir. 2009) immunity by Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. La. Pub. Servo Comm'n, 662 F.3d 336, 340 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal citations omitted) . Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to any state agency or other political entity that is the alter ego or arm of the state. Vogt V. Bd. of Comm'rs of Orleans Levee Dist., 294 F.3d 684, 688-89 (5th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) . To determine whether a person or entity is an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, the court engages in the following six-factor test: (1) whether the state statutes and caselaw view the agency as an arm of the state; (2) the source of the entity's funding; (3) the entity's degree of local autonomy; (4) whether the entity is concerned primarily wi th local, as opposed to statewide, problems; (5) whether the entity has the authority to sue and be sued in its own name; and (6) whether the entity has the right to hold and use property. Black V. North Panola Sch. Dist., 461 F.3d 584, 596 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) . Of these factors, the most significant factor in assessing the entity's status is whether a judgment against it will be paid with -9- state funds. United States ex reI. King v. Univ. of Tex. Health Sci. Ctr.-Houston, denied, 134 S. 544 F. App'x 490, Ct. 1767 citations omitted). (2014) 496 (5th Cir. 2013), (internal cert. quotation marks and The critical question is whether the use of unappropriated funds to pay a damage award would interfere with the fiscal autonomy and political sovereignty of the state. Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) 1. Director Thaler Claims under § 1983 may be brought against a person in his individual or official capacity. F.3d 388, 395 (5th Cir. 2009). liability of Director Thaler Goodman v. Harris County, 571 The court will first analyze the in his official capacity as the director of TDCJ-CID. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice is a state agency. Cox v. Texas, 354 F. App'x 901, 902 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Harris v. Angelina Cnty., Tex., 31 F.3d 331, 338 n.7 (5th Cir. 1994)) suit against a state official such as Director Thaler A in his official capacity is therefore a suit against the state itself. Morris v. Livingston, 739 F.3d 740, 745 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 2014 WL 1515174 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 109 S. Ct. 2304, 2312 (1989)). A suit against a state official that is in fact a suit against a state is barred regardless of whether it seeks damages or injunctive relief. Aguilar v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice, 160 F.3d 1052, 1054 (5th -10- Cir. 1998) (quoting Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 104 S. Ct. 900, 909 (1984)). Accordingly, Director Thaler's Motion to Dismiss will be granted. 2. UTMB Jensen names UTMB as a party in his complaint. UTMB, however, is a state agency that enjoys immunity from suit in federal court. See Lewis, 665 F.3d at 630 (concluding that UTMB is immune from a § 1983 claim because appellant conceded UTMB is a state agency and did not argue that Texas consented to the suit). State court decisions also hold that UTMB is a "governmental unit" of Texas. See, ~, Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch v. Qi, 402 S.W.3d 374, (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.); of Tex. Med. Branch, 171 S.W.3d 365, 368 Dist.] 2005, no pet.); Noah v. Univ. 380 Robinson v. Univ. (Tex. App.-Houston [14th of Tex. Med. Branch, 176 S.W.3d 350, 355 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. denied). UTMB receives state funding from Texas's Permanent University Fund, disposes of donations, gifts, grants, and endowments in accordance with state law, and pays claims against it by direct legislative appropriation. See Tex. Const. art. 7, § 11; Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 95.34; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.109. Furthermore, UTMB is under the control and management of the Board of Regents of the University of Texas System whose members are appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the state senate. Educ. Code Ann. § 74.001; § 65.11. -11- See Tex. The court concludes that any claim against UTMB is a claim against the state of Texas itself because UTMB is an arm of the state. As an institution within the University of Texas System, UTMB is a state agency that enjoys the benefit of immunity from Texas has not waived its immunity as the suit in federal court. principal of UTMB, and UTMB claims immunity on behalf of Texas in Jensen's the Motion to Dismiss. barred by Eleventh Amendment 1983 claim against UTMB is § Accordingly, sovereign immunity. UTMB's Motion to Dismiss will be granted. B. Personal Involvement The court must also analyze the liability of Director Thaler in his individual capacity as director of TDCJ-CID. capacity suits under § 1983 seek to government official as an individual. impose Individual liability upon See Goodman, a 571 F.3d at 395. Personal involvement by a defendant is an essential element of a civil rights cause of action. Hamilton v. Foti, 372 F. App'x 480, 486 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381, 382 (internal (5th Cir. 1983)) quotation marks omitted). plaintiff must plead that each government official, official's because individual vicarious actions, liability Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1948. is has violated inapplicable the to § A through the Constitution 1983 suits. A supervisor is not personally liable -12- for his subordinate's actions in which he had no involvement. James v. Tex. Collin Cnty., 535 F.3d 365, 373 (5th Cir. 2008). doors of discovery are not unlocked to a nothing more than conclusions. The plaintiff armed with Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950. Jensen does not allege that Director Thaler was personally Although Jensen involved in the violation of his civil rights. argues that Director Thaler failed to monitor the effectiveness of TDCJ-CID policies and the failure to monitor caused his injury, his argument is a legal conclusion insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. that See Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (finding that a pleading offers only "labels and conclusions" and "tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement" is insufficient to survive vicariously a motion liable to for dismiss). the conduct Director of Thaler TDCJ-CID is not employees. Accordingly, Jensen's claim against Director Thaler in his personal capacity as director of TDCJ-CID does not state a cognizable claim under § 1983 for which relief can be granted. IV. For the reasons Conclusion and Order explained above, the court ORDERS following: 1. Defendants UTMB and Thaler's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6) and 12(b) (1) (Docket Entry No. 20) is GRANTED, and plaintiff's claims against Director Rick Thaler and the -13- the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston are DISMISSED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Continuance to Answer States Counsel for Motion to Dismiss Against Divisions Which Are Defendants in the Above Cause Number (Docket Entry No. 24) is DENIED. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 27th day of June, 2014. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -14-
]]>
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.
