Walker v. Anderson, Sheriff Tarrant County et al, No. 4:2014cv00731 - Document 13 (N.D. Tex. 2014)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order...all claims and causes of action by plaintiff against defendants are dismissed pursuant to the authority of 28 USC 1915A(b) (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 12/17/2014) (wrb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Walker v. Anderson, Sheriff Tarrant County et al Doc. 13 ' . f I t-s.ll T lsTul COIRT cT J NGRTHERN DI CT OF TEXAS STRI . . : jy q. ): . IN THE UNITED STATES D ISTRICT . NORTHERN D ISTRICT OF TEYA , ' F WORTH DI SI ORT VI ON ..,, ,. yj w ay Ep . UURT . r t ! 7 ' ! j-2 1 j ( 24 j j #,rny. zua s . xr r j i CIERK, s pl- c' fb b k' c-. srRr r L' i ?r ! f PF j,!,7*--'-'' x!y ---' 27 . . . . . .. . ' . E KER BILLY DAT' WAT, , ' >uu . . ' .. . . . j , . .v..-. . a.:l. . . . o..,= . .. . . . . . : .w n Plaintiff, NO . 4 :l4-CV -73l-A VS . SHERIFF DEE ANDERSON , ET AL ., Defendants . MEMORANDUM OPIN ION and ORDER Now before the court f consideration is t amj or he nded j' # complai filed i the a nt n bove actio by plai n ntiff, t t ' ' . Bi j D e l y al Walker, naming as defendants Sheriff Dee Anderson (' ' Anderson'),l ' Lt. Olds (' 'O1ds' Sgt . Neaves U' '), Neavesl), and Unknown P . . or l A Doctor. The amended complaint identifies Olds and NeAves as ? ( employees of the Tarrant County Jail , while the unknown doctor is alleged to be part of the jail' medical department. At the time s ) plaintiff filed the instant action, he was incarceratèd at th: f / Tarrant County Jail . However, the papers on file with the court , in this action show that plaintiff is noW incarcerated in a lIhecour i dim isi t sac i i isentr t f f l eofpl ntf t alege any vi aton of '' t s s s ng hi ton n t iey or aiur ai if o l ol i hi consiutonalrght Howe ,t c not t tdim isalofAnder on woul alo be a oprat s tt i i s. ver he ourt es ha s s s d s ppr i e, becaus pl ntf hass Ander on onl hi s vi y ca t Super sor ofi al cannotbe labl e ai if ued s y s uper sor paciy. vi y fci s i e u e j 1 83o a yt o yofvia iusla ii a dnohi i t a n dc mplitalg st a nd r 9 n n he r c ro ib ly, n t ng n he me de o an le e h t t Ande on w a per onaly i ved i any pur t vi a i ofpl ntf cons iutonalrght .See,e. , rs s s l nvol n pored olton ai ifs tt i i s g. M o lev. t ofLi Oa Te ,9 F.d 9 ,9 ( t Ci.1 92 . ' uil Ciy ve k. x. 77 2 24 29 5h r 9 ) Dockets.Justia.com facility with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in Abilene , Texas . 1. Screeninq Under 2 8 U . . .5 19l5A S C ' - f As a prisoner seeking redress from government officials, plaintiff' complaint is subject to preliminary screening under s 28 U . . . 5 1915A . See Martin v . Scott, l56 F .3d 578, 579-80 S C ( h Cir . 1998). Section l9l5A ( ( providès for sua sponte 5t b) 1) dismissal if 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 arguable basis in either fact or law.' Neitzke v. Williams, 4j0 U. 319, 325 ' S. ( 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 allegations fail to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Bell Atl. Corp . v. Twomblv , 550 U.S. 544, 555 ( 2007). In evaluating whether the complaint states a valid claim for relief , the court construes the allegations of the complaint favorably to the pleader . Warth v . Seldin , 422 U . . 490, 501 S ( 1975). However, the court does not accept conclusory allegations or unwarranted deductions of fact as true , and a plaintiff must provide more than labels and conclusions or a 2 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action . Twomblv , 550 U .S . at 555 7 Tuchman v . DSC Commc dns Corp ., 14 F .3d 1061, 1067 ( 5th Cir. 1994). Having now considered the allegations in the amended complaint, the court concludes that it should be dismissed in its entirety under the provisions of 28 U . . . 5 l915A . S C II . M alysis A. A lleqations of the Amended Complaint - - In the amended complaint , plaintiff alleged that in late 2013 he and Olds were discussing a grievance plaintiff had filed . Olds suddenly stated 'Oh, so this is about getting moved,' and ' walked away . Am . Compl . at 4 . Plaintiff was subsequently moved to administrative segregation . Plaintiff wa: not told why he was moved, he received no written notice of the move , and he received no re ew of the transfer. When plaintiff returned to the jail vi in 2014 , he Was again immediately placed in segregation. Plaintiff alleged he was Hbeing denied due plocess ( and) medical treatment .' Id . Plaintiff is seeking punitive and compensatory ' damages , as well as filing fees and court costs . B. No Due Process Violation Plaintiff contends that his transfer to the adm inistrative . segregation unit without notice v iolated his right to due 3 process. To state a Due Process claim, plaintiff must first identify a constitutionally protected liberty interest . Meachum v . Fano, 427 U . . 215, 223-24 ( S 1976). A prisoner's liberty interest is ugenerally limited to freedom from restraint which, While not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force , . . . nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life .' Sandin v . Conner, 515 U . 472, 484 ( ' S. 1995) ( citations omitted). ' The Fifth Circuit has interpreted Sandin to hold that, in general, a prisoner has no liberty interest in his custodial classification. Hernandez v . Velascuez, 522 F . 556, 562 ( 3d 5th Cir. 2008) ( per curiam). More specifically,' the court has 'clearly held that absènt extraordinary circumstances, ' administrative segregation as such, being an incident to the ordinary life as a prisoner, will never be a ground for a constitutional claim .' Id. ( ' internal quotatlon marks and citations omitted). see also Huff v . Thaler, 518 F. App ' 311, x 3ll ( 5th Cir . 2013)2 ( per curiam) ( absent extraordinary 2 cour r The t ecogni t unpubls opi onsar notbi ng aut iy. Neverhel ,t zes hat ihed ni e ndi hort t ess he courtfndst hol ngsand anal soft unpubls casescied her n i t uc i i t pr ent i he di ysi he ihed t ei ns r tve n he es ac i ton. ' 4 . ' j circumstances, transfer of prisoner to administrative segregation without notice or hearing does not impose an atypical and significant hardship required to trigger the protections of the Due Process Clause); Allums v . Phillips, 444 F. App l 840, 841 x ( 5th Cir. 2011) ( per curiam) ( placing prisoner in administrative ' segregation was not deprivation of liberty interest and did not violate due process); Pichardo v. Kinker, 73 F.3d 612, 613 ( 5th Cir. 1996) ( same). The cited authorities, and others like them, are fatal to ' plaintiff' constitutional claim . Plaintiff had no liberty s interest in his classification status . Hence , defendants did not violate any constitutional right by moving him to administrative segregation . Absent any protected liberty interest, plaintiff ' cannot show that such transfer v iolated his Due Process rights . 3 C. Failure to Provide Medical Care The ' l unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain . . . constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth ' Amendment .' Hudson v . McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5 ( ' 1992) ( ellipses in originallt internal citation and quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court has determined that deliberate indifference to a 3 t ext pl ntf Due Pr scl m i gr To he ent ai ifs oces ai s ounded on hi cont i t tno r on was s enton ha eas gi f hi tans ert adm i sr tve s ega i t tcl m i contadi ed by pl ntf own flngs. ven or s r f o nita i egr ton, ha ai s r ct ai ifs ii l t paper a t n he s tached t t orgi compl nt whi ar r e r t a r i on i t amended o he i nal ai , ch e ef r ed o nd eled n he com pl nt i i appar t tpl ntf wasmoved t s egaton i r ponset sat ai , t s ent ha ai if o egr i n es o t ement hem ade t s o ot prs st tprs ofi al i er e ed ast eat ofphyscalvi ence. her ioner ha ion fci s nt pr t hr s i ol 5 / prisoner' serious medical needs may constitute the ' s ' unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain' necessary to state an Eighth ' Amendment violation. Estelle v. Gaible, 429 U. 97, l04 ( S. 1976). HoWever, not every claim by a prisoner that he received inadequate medical care states a constitutional violation . Id . at 104 -105 . . For a prison official ' deliberate indifference to a s prisoner' serious medical needs 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 , 5ll U .S . 825, 837 ( 1994). nl Tlhe official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.' Id. ' An official' 'failure to alleviate a significant risk that he s ' should have perceived but did notn does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation . Id . at 838 . Unsuccessful medical care , negligent treatment, or medical malpractice do not rise to the level of a constitutional tort . Gobert v . Caldwell, 463 F .3d 339, 346 ( 5th Cir. 2006). nDeliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to meet.' Id. ( ' internal quotation marks and citation omitted). ' 6 f The allegations of the amended complaint fail to meet this high standard . The amended complaint states only that the unknown physician's assistant or doctor 'denied plaintiff medical ' treatment.' Am . Compl. at 3. No facts are given to support this ' conclusory assertion . Even if the court were to consider the original complaint , it prov ides only slightly more detail , contending that the medical staff refused to give plaintiff his prescription medication. No additional facts are provided to support this single allegation, even, as far' the court can as tell, in the voluminous papers attached to the original complaint . Nor are facts alleged to shoW the defendants were aware of facts from which they could draw the inference that a substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff ex isted, or that any officials drew such an inference . To prevail on his claim also requires plaintiff to show that defendants ' deliberate indifference resulted in substantial harm . Hernandez, 522 F. at 561. However, no facfs are alleged to 3d indicate that plaintiff has suffered in any Way from any perceived lack of medical care. Under the circumstances described in the amended complaint , plaintiff failed to meet the ' high standard' required to show defendants Were deliberately ' indif ferent to his medical needs . 7 J 111 . Order Therefore , The court ORDERS that all claims and causes of action asserted by plaintiff, Billy Dale Walker , against defendants , Anderson , Olds , Neaves, and Unknown P . . or Doctor , in the aboveA captioned action be , and are hereby , dismissed pursuant to the ' authority of 28 U . C. 19l5A ( S. b). > Az SIGNED December 17, 2014 . ' ' . ' .=' '* . ... z .' z .. .. z'. ' . ' .- < .* z . M .z . . .. * w.r . g* .H ' .' ., . , ar , . ' ' .' . z' . w z MCBRYD nited states Distri 8 ' . y. e . : t . . ' Jud'e g a # .' x /
]]>
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.
