Grant v. Lacie, No. 4:2015cv01849 - Document 12 (S.D. Tex. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing with prejudice 1 Complaint (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Grant v. Lacie Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION KEVON D. GRANT, § § § § § § § § § Plaintiff, v. WARDEN ROBERT LACIE, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-15-1849 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Kevon D. Grant under Bivens v. (#A59708694) Six Unknown Named Agents has filed a complaint of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 91 S. Ct. 1999 (1971), concerning the conditions of his confinement at ( "Complaint") . a local immigration At the court's request, definite statement of his claims. pauperis, the court is required detention Grant has facility filed a more Because he proceeds in forma to scrutinize the claims and dismiss the Complaint, in whole or in part, if it determines that the Complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or "seeks monetary relief against a defendant § who is 1915 (e) (2) (B) (iii) . required, the court immune from such relief. " After reviewing all of will dismiss this action 28 U.S.C. the pleadings as for the reasons explained below. Dockets.Justia.com I. Background When Grant filed this lawsuit he was in custody of a private contractor, the Corrections Corporation of America ("CCA"), as an immigration detainee awaiting removal Grant sues Robert Lacie, who is from the employed as United States. 1 warden of the immigration detention facility operated by CCA. The Complaint stems from an incident that occurred at the immigration detention facility on May 16, 2015. Grant was exercis- ing on an elliptical machine at the facility recreation area when it suddenly" sped away." 2 elliptical machine, he When Grant attempted to get off the lost his balance and his jammed up" in the "cross bars" of the machine. 3 left leg "got Grant estimates that he was stuck in the machine for approximately thirty minutes. 4 Grant was taken to the detention facility medical department and treated by a physician's assistant. 5 records provided by Grant, According to medical the physician's assistant noted that Grant was able to place weight on his left extremity.6 1The record reflects that Grant sometime after this lawsuit was filed. was deported Grant was to Jamaica 2Plaintiff More Definite Statement, Docket Entry No. 11, p. 2. 3Id. 5Id. 6Progress Note, attached to Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1-2, p. 1. -2- given pain medication (Ibuprofen) for an unspecified "left leg injury" and he was also prescribed "ice, elevation and crutches."7 Grant was not seen in the medical department again until May 21, 2015. B On that occasion Grant was examined by a registered nurse: 9 Grant reported feeling pain and numbness from below the left knee area down to his foot.1o He was also described as "upset" that all he was given was Ibuprofen for pain.1I that Grant was "in no acute distress" swelling" or "redness" in his left leg. 12 The nurse observed and that there was "no The nurse scheduled Grant to be seen the next day for further evaluation. l3 The following day Grant was treated at a local emergency room, where an x-ray disclosed "[nlo acute fracture or dislocation" and " [nl ormal bony alignment." 14 Grant was diagnosed with a sprain and strain" and prescribed Ibuprofen for pain, "foot range-of- motion exercises, and "warm moist heat daily." 15 7Id. at 2. BId. at 3. 9Id. l°Id. llId. 12Id. at 4. l3Id. 14Memorial Hermann Healthcare System (Final Report), attached to Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1-1, p. 2. 15Progress Note, attached to Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1-2, p. 7. -3- In his pending Complaint Grant contends that Warden Lacie was "negligent" and is therefore liable under Bivens because he failed to ensure that safety standards were met or that "safety signs" were posted to notify detainees of the risk posed by the elliptical machine .16 Grant contends further that he received inadequate medical attention in violation of the Eighth Amendment on May 16, 2015, because the pain medication he was given (Ibuprofen) "did not stop the pain."17 Grant seeks $20,000.00 in monetary damages for l8 the violation of his constitutional rights. II. Discussion Grant has filed this suit against Warden Lacie under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 91 S. Ct. 1999 (1971), alleging violations of his constitutional rights. "Under Bivens a person may sue a federal agent for money damages when the federal agent constitutional rights." 590 (5th Cir. 1999) has allegedly violated that person1s Brown v. Nationsbank Corp., 188 F. 3d 579, (citation omitted). Bivens actions, however, may not be brought against private corporations. See Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 122 S. Ct. 515, 517 (2001) (holding that no action lies under Bivens against a private corporation operating a halfway house under contract with the Bureau 16Complaint, Docket Entry No.1, pp. 2, 3. 17Id. at 3. l8Id. at 5. -4- of Prisons). Additionally, the Supreme Court has refused to imply a remedy under Bivens against personnel at a privately operated federal prison where state tort law provides an adequate alternative remedy. See Minneci v. Pollard, 132 S. Ct. 617, 626 (2012). Because Lacie is employed by CCA, which is a private contractor, he cannot be held liable under Bivens if Texas provides an adequate alternative remedy for his claims. See id. As noted above, Grant contends that Lacie is liable for negligence because the elliptical machine at the detention center was unsafe. 19 Grant alleges further that employees of the privately operated detention center denied him adequate medical care by not prescribing stronger pain medication. The Supreme Court specifically noted in Minneci that Texas state law "imposes general tort duties of reasonable care (including medical care) on prison employees./I 624-25 (citing Salazar v. Collins, App. Waco 2008, no pet)). 132 S. Ct. at 255 S.W.3d 191, 198-200 (Tex. Al though Grant characterizes his claims as constitutional violations, "[s]tate-law remedies and a 19Grant attempts to characterize this claim as a violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Complaint, Docket Entry No.1, p. 3. He does not allege facts showing that either provision applies. Instead, he appears to allege a state law claim of negligence. As a state law claim, allegations of negligence are not actionable under Bivens. See Daniels v. Williams, 106 S. Ct. 662, 663 (1986) (holding that negligence is not cognizable under § 1983); Humphries v. Various Federal USINS Employees, 164 F.3d 936, 951 (5th Cir. 1999) (providing that in order to prevail in any Bivens action, [claimants] must both prove a deliberate abuse of governmental power rather than mere negligence). Accordingly, Grant's allegation of negligence does not state a claim under Bivens for this additional reason. -5- potential Bivens remedy need not be perfectly congruent. 132 S. Ct. at 625. If Minneci, Because Texas provides an adequate alternative remedy for his claims of negligence and inadequate medical care, Grant may not pursue relief under Bivens. at 626. Accordingly, Grant's See Minneci, 132 S. Ct. Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. III. Conclusion and Order Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS that the plaintiff's Complaint (Docket Entry No.1) is DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2) (B) for failure to state a claim. The Clerk of Court is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the parties. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 12th day of August, 2015. SIM LAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -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.
