Glass v. MHMR Tarrant County Jail, No. 4:2014cv00701 - Document 6 (N.D. Tex. 2014)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order...all claims by palintiff Glass against deft MHMR Tarrant Co Jail are dismissed pursuant to 28 USC 1915A(b). cy to EDTX (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 9/30/2014) (wrb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
I i Glass v. MHMR Tarrant County Jail . r '' v . ' . Doc. 6 , t- oï l l lcotlrs. s-x c' ) fxr NORTI ERN pl rul r oj Tsxas . I s. c. r .' ' ..'.. , ... . ' . .. . . r '. . . j . ( ?1 IN THE UNITED ST TES DISTRICT C U:: ' NO T R DI T C OF T X R HB N RI T E AS kt . ; ' . . . FjLEP . rs s pavaj j . . FORT WOR H DIVISION CLERK U. m s y j jcorjy s. l t c' l, f . By . ' , ;. EDWARD BENTON GLASS , 5 5 5 5 Plaintiff , VS . MHMR TARRANT COUNTY JAIL DIV ., Defendant . 5 5 5 5 5 XO ' PQI Y - - j 5 w t NO . 4 :14 -CV -701-A MEMOM N UM OPINION nd O DER Now before the court for c nsideration is a complaint filed in the above action by plaintiff, Edward Benton Glass, naming as defendant MHMR Tarrant County Jail Division x Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Tarrant County Jail. As a prisoner seeking redress from g vernment officials, plaintiff' s complaint is subject to prelimi ary screening under 28 U. C. ï S. 1915A . See Martin v . Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 ( 5th Cir. 1998). Section l9l5A ( l) pro ides for sua sponte dismissal if b)( the court finds that the complaint is either frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A claim is frivolous if it 'lacks an argua le basis in either fact or law .' ' l t Alhough t cour i unf ii wih an ntt na ed 'M I M R Tar a Count Jai Di si 'i he t s am lar t iy m ' I r nt y l vi on,'t i lkel t t si nota pr s i y hat hi s operdef ndant Beca e t cour concl e . u he t udest tpl ntf hasf ld t s a e ha ai if aie o t t any cl m ,a det m i i oft pr rdef ai er naton he ope endan i unnecess r s a y. Dockets.Justia.com i ! Neitzke v . Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 ( 1989). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted when, assuming that all the allegations in the complaint are true even if doubtful in fact, such allegati ns fail to raise a right to relief above the speculative le el . Bell Atl . Corp . v . Twombly , 550 U . 544, 555 ( S. 2007). In evaluating whether the omplaint states a valid claim for relief, the court construes the allegations of the complaint favorably to the pleader . Wart v . Seldin , 422 U . . 490, 50l S ( 1975). However, the court doe not accept conclusory allegations or unwarranted dedu tions of fact as true, and a plaintiff must provide more tha labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the ele ents of a cause of action. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Tuchm n v . DSC Comyc' Cor ., 14 F.3d ns 1061, 1067 ( 5th Cir. 1994). Having now considered the court concludes that it should llegations in the complaint, the e dismissed in its entirety under the provisions of 28 U . . . 5 1 15A . S C In the complaint , plaintif one mental health doctor in fiv alleged that he has only seen months. The doctor only ordered plaintiff a prescription medica ion for ' ' mild anxiety .' Compl . ' at 4. Plaintiff alleged that h has 'PTSD, psycosis ( ' sic), major anxiety disorder, bipolar, majo depression, panic attacks, and a 2 I recurring nightmare ,' id w but is not being treated for those ' conditions . Plaintiff appears to be a serting a claim for deliberate indifference to his medical ne ds under 42 U . C. 5 1983. S. The 'unnecessary and wanton inflic ion of pain . . . constitutes ' cruel and unusual punishment f rbidden by the Eighth Amendment .' ' Hudson v . McMillian, 503 U . S. , 5 ( 1992) ( ellipses in originalll internal citation an quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court has determ ined t at deliberate indifference to a prisoner ' serious medical nee s may constitute the 'unnecessary s ' and wanton infliction of pain ' necessary to state an Eighth ' Amendment violation . Estelle . Gae le , 429 U . . 97, l04 ( S 1976). However, not every claim by a risoner that he received inadequate medical care states a constitutional violation . Id. at 104-105 . For a prison official 's deliberate indifference to a prisoner ' serious medical nee s to rise to the level of a s constitutional violation, a prisoner must establish that the official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to a prisoner 's health or safety . Farmer v . Brennan , 511 U . . 825 , S 837 ( 1994) . ' E he official must b0th be aware of facts from ' T) which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists , and he must also draw the inference .' Id . ' a An official' 'failure to alle iate a significant risk that he s ' should have perceived but did ot' does not constitute an Eighth ' Amendment violation. Id . at 838. Unsuccessful medical care, negligent treatment , or medica malpractice do not rise to the level of a constitutional tort . Gobert v . Caldwell, 463 F .3d 339, 346 ( 5th Cir. 2006). Dis greement between a prisoner and his doctor regarding the cours of treatment is generally not actionable. Banuelos v . McFar and, 41 F . 232, 235 ( 3d 5th Cir. 1995) ( per curiam). ïDelibera e indifference is an extremely ' high standard to meet.' Gobert, 463 F.3d at 346 ( ' internal quotation marks and citation o itted). The allegations of the co plaint fail to meet this high standard . The essence of plai tiff ' complaint is that although s plaintiff is receiving treatme t for mental health issues, he believes he needs more or diff rent medical treatment than what is being provided . These type of allegations amount to a disagreement with the medical treatment provided, 'contentions that fall short of a constitutional or federal claim .' Varnado ' v . Lvnauqh, 920 F. 320, 32l ( 2d 5th Cir. 1991) ( per curiam). The complaint is also notable for what is lacking . For example, plaintiff does not allege that he complained to anyone about the medical treatment he has received , or that he suffered 4 or suffers from symptoms that emained untreated,z or that he has asked or attempted to see a ph sician but has been refused. No facts are alleged to show any f defendant 's employees were aware of facts from which they could draw the inference that a substantial risk of serious ha m to plaintiff existed, or that any officials drew such an inf rence . To prevail on his claim also requires plaintiff to sho that defendant's deliberate indifference resulted in 'subs antial harm.' Mendoza v . Lynauqh, ' ' 989 F . 191, 195 ( 2d 5th Cir. 19 3). However, no facts are alleged to indicate that plaintiff has suffered in any way from any perceived lack of medical care . Under the circumstances described in the complaint, pl intiff cannot establish that defendant was deliberately ind ' fferent to his medical needs . 3 To sum up the court's con lusions, plaintiff has failed to allege any facts as would show defendant refused to treat him , ignored his complaints, or int ntionally treated him incorrectly . The complaint fails to meet th 'high standardp required to show ' defendant was deliberately ind ' fferent to plaintiff' medical s needs. Plaintiff has thus fai ed to allege a violation of his z t Alhough t com pl nti uded a ls o dignos pl ntf cont he ai ncl it a es ai if endshehasbeen gi n, t e ve her ar no f saleged t s t pl ntf s f s om any s pt sr at t t di e act l o how hat ai if ufer ym om el ed o he agnoses . 3tappear lkel t tt pr I s i y ha he operdef n i t sac i i eiherTarantCount oranot r enda n hi ton s t r y he gove nment entt To t e e ,pl ntf has lo f l t alegeany f t asw oul esabls r al iy. hat xt nt ai if s aied o l ac s d t ih la lt f a y g e nme t l ntt Se , g, tows v. ofHou t n, F.d 5 ,5 ( t ibiiy or n ov r n a e iy. e e..Pi r ki Ci so 237 3 67 78 5h Ci. 01;Be ne t Civo Sldel 7 F. 8 ,8 2 ( t Ci.1 84 ( rc im) r 20 ) n t v. t f i l, 35 2d 61 6 5h r 9 ) pe ura . 5 constitutional rights. Therefore, The court ORDERS that a1l claims and causes of action asserted in the above-captione action by plaintiff, Edward Benton Glass, against defendan , MHMR Tarrant County Jail Division, be, and are hereby, ismissed pursuant to the authority of 28 U.S. 1915A ( C. b). . .. S IGNED September 2 9 , 2 014 . / ' z ' '' . ,. ,, ., #. * , r' ' . . '. , . .. z e - , <. e f ' ' . àYD / ' ,' . Z' ' Z r ' ' ,r. z ' .z .. . ., .. z , / z z .' , ,, d' z . e .s. z,. ' .' zs Z Z nite àtates Dist ct Judge z. ' , ? , / / J g ' ; . ' k/ ? .' 6 .
]]>
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.
