Gonzalez v. Collier et al, No. 2:2019cv00009 - Document 16 (N.D. Tex. 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT: For the reasons set forth above and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), the Court ORDERS Plaintiff's Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. (Ordered by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk on 2/18/2022) (nhp)

Download PDF

- -- Gonzalez v. Collier et al ---- -- -- - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Doc. 16 Case 2:19-cv-00009-Z-BR Document 16 Filed 02/18/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 42 . U.S. DIS/R/(Tco . . No1n11rnN DISTR .. UR/ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION FILED 01- TEX'(\,.~ [FEB 18 2022 CLERK l J - . I.S. DISTRICT COURT JESUS JESSE GONZALEZ, TDCJ-CID No. 01991684, Plaintiff, § By!I:-'n;:j;j,11-;;;;,,_v- - - § § § § v. BRYAN COLLIER et al., § § § Defendants. § 2: 19-CV-009-Z-BR § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT Before the Court is Plaintiffs civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the above-referenced Defendants (ECF No. 3) ("Complaint"), filed January 14, 2019. Plaintiff filed suit prose while incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ("TDCJ"), Correctional Institutions Division. Plaintiff was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complain WITH PREJUDICE. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff claims he and his brother, Andy Gonzalez, were incarcerated together at a TDCJ facility in 2018. ECF No. 3 at 4. On October 15, 2018, Plaintiff received word that his brother Andy died of a heart attack while incarcerated. Id. Plaintiff claims he heard from other inmates in his brother's unit that his brother had requested medical help the day he died but his request was ignored. Id. Plaintiff brings a claim for deliberate indifference to his brother 's medical needs. Dockets.Justia.com ---- ···- - - · · · · · · · · -·· -- -- -- ---- - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - Case 2:19-cv-00009-Z-BR Document 16 Filed 02/18/22 LEGAL Page 2 of 3 PageID 43 ST AND ARD When a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility brings an action with respect to prison conditions under any federal law, the Court may evaluate the complaint and dismiss it without service of process, Ali v. Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 1990), if it is frivolous, 1 malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, l 915(e)(2). The same standards will support dismissal of a suit brought under any federal law by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility, where such suit concerns prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(l). A Spears hearing need not be conducted for every prose complaint. Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480,483 n.4 (5th Cir. 1991). 2 ANALYSIS The constitutional rights of an incarcerated person - whether he is a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner - may be violated if his serious medical needs are met with deliberate indifference on the part of penal authorities. See Thompson v. Upshur County, 245 F.3d 447,457 (5th Cir. 2001); Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 159 (5th Cir. 1999). However, Plaintiff does not allege that he personally has ever been denied such medical care. Plaintiff lacks standing to 1 A claim is frivolous ifit lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114, 115 (5th Cir. 1993). 2 Green vs. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1120 (5th Cir. 1986) ("Of course, our discussion of Spears should not be interpreted to mean that all or even most prisoner claims require or deserve a Spears hearing. A district court should be able to dismiss as frivolous a significant number of prisoner suits on the complaint alone or the complaint together with the Watson questionnaire."). Dismissals may also be based on adequately identified or authenticated records. Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 234 (5th Cir. 1995). 2 Case 2:19-cv-00009-Z-BR Document 16 Filed 02/18/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 44 even his brother. See Reeves v. Collins, No. pursue a claim on behalf of another person - 94-10182, 1994 WL 559050, at *2 (5th Cir. Sept. 23, 1994). CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § l 997e(a), the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. SO ORDERED. February .f.i., 2022 ARYK STRICT JUDGE 3

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.