Bell v. Richerson, No. 2:2019cv00080 - Document 12 (N.D. Tex. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint with Prejudice as frivolous. (Ordered by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk on 6/7/2022) (djs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bell v. Richerson Doc. 12 Case 2:19-cv-00080-Z-BR Document 12 Filed 06/07/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 56 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION KENNETH BELL, TDCJ-CID No. 00539021, Plaintiff, V. KENDALL RICHARDSON, Defendant. § § § § § § § § § § l l.S. DI STRICT COl.llff NO RI! ll · RN llf STl<f( T OF TFXAS f'f LEI) [ JUN - 7 2022 I CLERK, lJ.S. DISTRI CT COU R ~ By DvplH\' 4' 2: 19-CV-080-Z-BR MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Kenneth Bell, acting prose and while incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ("TDCJ"), Correctional Institutions Division, filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Having considered the pleadings and relevant law, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint WITH PREJUDICE. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges Defendant Richardson is responsible for lost property and commissary purchased at another TDCJ unit prior to his incarceration at the TDCJ Bill Clements Unit. See ECF No. 3 at 4. Plaintiff alleges that on June 20, 2018, his property and commissary were confiscated when he was placed in high security confinement. Id. Plaintiff contends Warden Richardson closed his grievances without returning his property or resolving the issue to Plaintiff's satisfaction. Id. LEGAL ANALYSIS 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 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-00080-Z-BR Document 12 Filed 06/07/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 57 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 allege is a TDCJ supervisor that 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 lacks a constitutionally protected interest in having his complaints and grievances resolved to his satisfaction. Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir. 2005). Therefore, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Richardson for failure to state a constitutional claim. Additionally, Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Richardson are based entirely on supervisory liability. In a Section 1983 suit, liability of government officials for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates 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 1A 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-00080-Z-BR Document 12 Filed 06/07/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 58 of Shreveport, 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."). Supervisory officials are not subject to vicarious liability under Section 1983 for the acts or omissions of their subordinates. See Mouille v. City ofLive 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 either implemented an unconstitutional policy that directly resulted in injury to 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). However, a supervisory official may be held liable under Section 1983 if he: (1) affirmatively participates in the acts that caused the constitutional deprivations alleged; or (2) implements unconstitutional policies that causally result in the constitutional injury alleged. See Gates v. Tex. Dep 't of Prof. & Regulator Servs., 537 F.3d 404, 435 (5th Cir. 2008). To establish supervisory liability for constitutional violations committed by subordinates, a plaintiff must show the supervisor acted or failed to act "with deliberate indifference to violations of others' constitutional rights committed by their subordinates." Porter v. Epps, 659 F.3d 440, 446 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Gates, 537 F.3d at 435). Supervisory actions that are merely inept, erroneous, or negligent do not amount to deliberate indifference. Alton v. Tex. A&M Univ., 168 F.3d 196, 201 (5th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff makes no allegation against Defendant Richardson concerning training or policies. Nor does Plaintiff allege any facts to support a claim of deliberate indifference. Plaintiff elected to sue Defendant Richardson alone; Plaintiff named no other defendant in this action. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Richardson to the extent the claims allege Defendant Richardson is responsible for the property lost by his subordinates. 3 ... ... . . - ------------ ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - Case 2:19-cv-00080-Z-BR Document 12 Filed 06/07/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 59 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. June1,2022 HEW J. KACSMARYK ITED 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.
