Burleson v. Richardson et al, No. 2:2019cv00075 - Document 7 (N.D. Tex. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. (Ordered by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk on 6/7/2022) (daa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Burleson v. Richardson et al Doc. 7 Case 2:19-cv-00075-Z-BR Document 7 Filed 06/07/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION . l r.s. J)JSTRJ (T Cot !Jff NORI III R:\ lllSTRJ(TOFTFX;\S , FILED [ JUN - 7 2022 , . j CLERK, U.S. DISTl~l(~R'f TRYONE LEE BURLESON, TDCJ-CID No. 01876269, § By Dq>ul_v '~ § § § § § § § § § Plaintiff, V. NFN RICHARDSON, et al., Defendants. 2: 19-CV-075-Z-BR MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Tryone Lee Burleson, acting pro se and while incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ("TDCJ''), Correctional Institutions Division, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has been granted permission to proceed informa pauperis. Having reviewed the pleadings and relevant law, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint WITH PREJUDICE. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges he has written both "step one" and "step two" grievances concerning the meals he receives on the TDCJ Bill Clements Unit. See ECF No. 3 at 4. Specifically, TDCJ staff have served Plaintiff raw lunchmeat made from a pork product and rendering Plaintiff sick to the stomach. Id. Plaintiff alleges he has allergies, and this pork-based food is not on his approved food list. Id. Plaintiff sues Defendant No First Name ("N.F.N.") Richardson, Warden of the TDCJ Bill Clements Unit, for his failure to correct the situation through the grievance process. Id at 3. Plaintiff also sues the unnamed health administrator or manager of the unit and the unnamed Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-00075-Z-BR Document 7 Filed 06/07/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 26 kitchen coordinator of the unit as responsible parties for distributing this food. Id. The sole relief requested by Plaintiff is that TDCJ stop putting raw uncooked lunchmeat on his food tray. Id. at 4. LEGAL STANDARD 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, 1915(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 Plaintiff alleges Defendant Richardson failed to adequately investigate and resolve Plaintiff's complaints and grievances. "[A] prisoner has a liberty interest only in 'freedom[s] from restraint ... impos[ing] atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life."' Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 31-32 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,484 (1995)). A prisoner does not have a constitutionally protected interest in having his complaints and grievances resolved to his satisfaction. Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 1A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in Jaw 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-00075-Z-BR Document 7 Filed 06/07/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 27 371,374 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Richardson for failure to state a constitutional claim. Further, the general prohibition on supervisory liability bars Plaintiffs claims against all Defendants. In a Section 1983 suit, liability of a government official for the unconstitutional conduct of a subordinate may not rest solely upon a theory of respondeat superior or vicarious liability. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009); see also Roberts v. City ofShreveport, 397 F.3d 287, 292 (5th Cir. 2005) ("Under section 1983, supervisory officials are not liable for the actions of subordinates on any theory of vicarious liability."). Thus, supervisory officials are not subject to vicarious liability under Section 1983 for the acts or omissions of their subordinates. See Mouil/e v. City of Live Oak, 977 F.2d 924, 929 (5th Cir. 1992). Absent direct personal participation in the alleged constitutional violation, a plaintiff must prove each individual defendant implemented an unconstitutional policy directly injuring the plaintiff or failed to properly train a subordinate employee. See Porter v. Epps, 659 F.3d 440,446 (5th Cir. 2011); Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303--04 (5th Cir. 1987). To the extent Plaintiff asserts claims against the kitchen coordinator and health administrator in their supervisory capacities over individuals that prepare lunch for inmates, the Court DISMISSES those claims. And to the extent Plaintiffs claims allege the kitchen coordinator failed to train individuals who prepare lunch trays for inmates with allergies, Plaintiffs claims fail to allege a constitutional deprivation. The Eighth Amendment requires that inmates be provided "well-balanced meal[s], containing sufficient nutritional value to preserve health." See Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999). "The deprivation of food constitutes cruel and unusual punishment only ifit denies a prisoner the 'minimal civilized measure oflife's necessities."' Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211,214 n.3 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294,298 (1991)). 3 Case 2:19-cv-00075-Z-BR Document 7 Filed 06/07/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 28 Constitutional violations are not established by pleading only discomforts associated with incarceration. See Hyder v. Perez, No. 96-40003, 1996 WL 255243, at *1 (5th Cir. Apr. 29, 1996) (per curiam) (upholding dismissal of claims that quantities of food were inadequate as lacking an arguable basis in law or fact); Warren v. Gusman, No. 16-15046, 2017 WL 1373875, at *15 (E.D. La. Mar. 10, 2017) (holding allegations that meals are not ideal, are overcooked, and not properly prepared for prisoner's diet and allergies "do not rise to a level of seriousness constituting a constitutional violation"). Plaintiff's complaints regarding the service of uncooked lunchmeat on his lunch tray "that makes him sick to his stomach" does not state a constitutional violation, as Plaintiff has not alleged that he has been hospitalized for allergic reactions or lost significant weight due to inadequate consumable food intake. Plaintiff only alleges eating raw lunchmeat has made him sick to his stomach - not that Defendants deliberately only serve Plaintiff foods he cannot consume due to allergies. See ECF No. 3 at 4. Moreover, Plaintiff does not allege he is otherwise provided an inadequate amount of food on a reoccurring basis. The Court therefore DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims for failure to state a claim. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A, and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. SO ORDERED. June _J_, 2022 HEW J. KACSMARYK ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4
]]>
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.
