London v. Fort Bend County Sheriff Department, No. 4:2014cv03381 - Document 20 (S.D. Tex. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (cfelchak, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
London v. Fort Bend County Sheriff Department Doc. 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION HENRY LONDON, Inmate ID #P00194069, § § § § § § § § § § § Plaintiff, v. FORT BEND COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-14-3381 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff, Henry London (Inmate ID #P00194069), currently in custody at the Fort Bend County Jail. filed a Civil Complaint under 42 U.S.C. of his civil rights § is London has 1983 alleging violations (Docket Entry No.1). Although the court previously dismissed this action for want of prosecution, it will reopen the case to consider a recently filed Statement of London's claims (Docket Entry No. 19). More Definite Because London is a prisoner, the court is required to scrutinize the claims and dismiss the complaint, in whole or in part, if it determines that the complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted" or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). After reviewing all of the pleadings the court will dismiss this action for the reasons explained below. Dockets.Justia.com I. London insulin. suffers from Background Type diabetes II (Docket Entry No. 19, p. 1) for which he takes London describes the type of insulin that he takes as "fast acting." (Id. at 2.) It reportedly starts working to lower blood sugar 15 to 20 minutes after it is taken. (Id.) So that his blood sugar does not get too low, London (Id. ) ordinarily eats a meal soon after he takes his insulin. On November 3, 2014, London received his insulin shot at about 3:50 a.m. (Docket Entry No.1, p. 3) At about 4:23 a.m. Sergeant Brady gave London a "snack bag for [his] diabetes." London was complained not given Sergeant a regular Brady breakfast reportedly meal. replied diabetic and "did not need any cereal." (Id.) (Id. ) However, When London that London was When London com- plained about the lack of breakfast to the officer on duty (Deputy Leal), the officer responded that he did not "give a fuck." (Id.) After London was denied a breakfast meal, he reportedly became "light headed and felt (Docket faint." Entry No. 19, p. 3) Another inmate gave him "a pack of cookies" to bring London's blood sugar level up. London claims (Id.) that the Although he did not suffer physical harm, incident caused him to suffer mental distress because "diabetes can and will cause death if not taken care of." (Id. ) By refusing to give him a breakfast meal on November 3, 2014, London claims that Sergeant Brady and Deputy Leal violated his constitutional rights. ([Amended] -2- Complaint Under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, Civil Rights Act, Docket Entry No.6, p. 3) London also claims that Fort Bend County Sheriff Nehls failed to adequately train these officers on the importance of providing a meal insulin-dependent diabetic (Id. ) inmates. London to contends, therefore, that the Fort Bend County Sheriff's Department is liable for depriving him of his constitutionally protected rights. London seeks $10 million in compensatory damages. II. A. (Id. ) (Id. at4.) Discussion Lack of Capacity As an initial matter, the Fort Bend County , Sheriff's Department must be dismissed because it is not amenable to suit. A party to a lawsuit must have the capacity to sue or be sued. See, Fed. R. Civ. P. 17; Maxwell v. Henry, 815 F. Supp. 213, 215 (S.D. Tex. 1993). department Texas law does not allow a county or municipal police to sue or be sued Darby v. separate legal existence." F.2d 311, omitted) . Fort Bend existence 313 (5th Cir. London County that is does directly 1991) not Sheriff's separate unless it "enjoy [s] Pasadena Police Dept., a 939 (internal quotation and citation allege Department from Fort facts has Bend showing been that granted County or the legal that it otherwise qualifies as an entity with capacity to sue or be sued. See Jacobs v. Port Neches Police Dept., 915 F. Supp. 842, 844 (E.D. Tex. 1996) (noting that a Texas county sheriff's department is not a legal entity capable of being sued "absent express action by the superior corporation (the county I -3- in the case of the sheriff's department) 'to grant the servient agency with jural authority'") (quoting Darby, 939 F.2d at 313-14)) To the extent that the Fort Bend County Sheriff's Department lacks capacity to be sued, London's claims against this defendant will be dismissed as legally frivolous. B. Failure to State a Claim London's allegations against the remaining defendants cannot sustain a claim for damages. London admits in his more definite statement that he "did not suffer any physical injury" as a result of not receiving a breakfast meal on November 3, 2014, and that he did not seek medical care as a result of that incident. Entry No. he seeks damages for 19, mental inj ury. " p. 3) Instead, (Docket "more of a (Id. ) This case is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), which bars prisoners from filing suit "for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury." In other words, allegations of "mental anguish, emotional distress, barred by § Cir. 2005). 1997e(e). [or] psychological harm" are See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Because London did not suffer a physical injury, his complaint is barred by § 1997e(e) and will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Al ternati vely, to the extent that the complaint could be construed to seek relief other than compensatory damages, still fails to state a claim. London London concedes in his more definite -4- statement that he was only denied a breakfast meal on one occasion. (Docket Entry No. 19, p. 4) London's allegation that he was denied a occasion breakfast meal on one constitutional violation. (5th Cir. 1999) does not give rise to a See Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (holding that denial of dinner on eight occasions over a seven-month span failed to establish an Eighth Amendment violation) . For this additional reason, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. III. Based on the foregoing, Conclusion the court ORDERS as follows: 1. The Order of Dismissal for want (Docket Entry No. 15) is VACATED. of prosecution 2. Plaintiff's Civil Complaint (Docket Entry No.1) is DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) as legally frivolous and for failure to state a claim. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the parties. The Clerk will also provide a copy and of this Memorandum facsimile transmission, Eastern District of Opinion Order by regular mail, or e-mail to the District Clerk for the Texas, Tyler Division, 211 West Ferguson, Tyler, Texas 75702, Attention: Manager of the Three-Strikes List. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 14th day of July, 2015. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -5-
]]>
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.
