Sain et al v. Collier et al, No. 4:2018cv04412 - Document 167 (S.D. Tex. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 162 MOTION for Injunctive; denying 135 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel; denying 160 MOTION to Strike; denying 159 MOTION for Joinder; denying 165 AMENDED MOTION; granting 141 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Remaining Claim as Moot. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(gclair, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sain et al v. Collier et al Doc. 167 Case 4:18-cv-04412 Document 167 Filed on 02/28/20 in TXSD Page 1 of 11 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UN ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION JOHN SAIN , et al ., Plaintiffs , VS. BRYAN COLLIER , et a1 ., Defendants . 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 February 28, 2020 David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO . H-18-4412 MEMOPAHDUM OPINION AND ORDER A group of state inmates led by plaintiff John Sain (TDCJ #01373168) filed this prisoner civil rights action under 42 U .S.C. 1983, seeking injunctive relief from the conditions of their confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (''TDCJ''). On August 30, 2019, the court issued a lengthy Memorandum Op inion and Order, dismissing several parties and a1l but one of the plaintiffs' substantive claims, which sought injunctive relief for violations of the Eighth Amendment (Docket Entry No . 120, pp . Now pending is Defendants ' Motion to D ismiss Plaintiffs' Remaining Claim as Moot (nDefendants' Motion to Dismiss'') (Docket Entry No . 141). The plaintiffs have filed three responses (Docket Entry Nos. 156, 157, 158). The plaintiffs have also filed several motions seeking to add new parties and new claims (Docket Entry Nos. 159, 162, 165). After considering al1 of the pleadings, the court will dismiss this case for the reasons set forth below . Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:18-cv-04412 Document 167 Filed on 02/28/20 in TXSD Page 2 of 11 1. Backcround The facts surrounding this lawsuit , which concerns conditions of confinement at the Luther Unit in Navasota , Texas, have been set forth previously and will not be repeated herex It is sufficient to note that the plaintiffs filed this action seeking injunctive relief in the form of access to adequate heat mitigation measures during the summer months and air-conditioned housing of the same type that is available at the Pack Unit under the terms of a class action settlement entered in Cole v . Collier, Civ il No . H-14-1698 (S.D . Tex . June 8, 2018) (Docket Entry No. 1188).2 On August 30, 2019 , the court granted motions to dismiss a1l claims filed by the p laintiffs against the University of Texas Medical Branch I''UTMB''I and the Correctional Managed Hea1th Care Comm ittee .3 The court also granted in part and denied in part a motion for summary judgment filed by TDCJ, Executive Director Bryan Collier, and James McKee, who serves as Warden of the Luther Unit .l The court dismissed the plaintiffs ' claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act .5 The court also lsee Memorandum Opinion and Order ? Docket Entry No . 120, pp . 3-18 . 2See Plaintiffs ' First Amended Class A ction Complaint, Docket Entry No . 25, p . 105 . 3See Memorandum Opinion and Order , Docket Entry No . 120, pp . 21-30, 75 . 4see id . at 30-72, 5see id . at 72-74 . Case 4:18-cv-04412 Document 167 Filed on 02/28/20 in TXSD Page 3 of 11 denied the plaintiffs' request for class certification ,6 and dismissed claim s filed by several proposed plaintiffs for failure to exhaust administrative remedies .g A s a result of these rulings the only plaintiffs remaining in this case are John Sain (TDCJ #01373168); David Cummings (TDCJ #02153663); Phillip Gullett (TDCJ #01672020)7 David Wilson (TDCJ #01648044); and Salvador Capuchino (TDCJ #01675667) (the ''remaining plaintiffs'o .8 The only remaining claim concerns whether these plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief for violations of the Eighth Amendment stemming from their exposure to extreme heat at the Luther Unit, wh ich is not air conditioned .g On October 28, 2019, the p laintiffs filed a motion for appointment of counsel x o shortly thereafter, on November 4 , 2019, the court received a written notice advising that of the remaining plaintiffs had been transferred from the Luther Unit to 6see id . at 18-21, 75-76 . Rsee id . at 35-39 , 75 . The court dismissed the claim s filed by plaintiff Jerry Smith (TDCJ #02171841) and two other proposed plaintiffs identified as Eugene Boston (TDCJ #02075115) and Jesse Snearly (TDCJ #02042412) as unexhausted, but allowed Salvador Capuchino (TDCJ #01675667) to proceed conditionally as a proposed plaintiff, subject to a showing that he has administrative remedies with respect to his claims . exhausted See id . 'see id . at 74-75 . gsee id . losee Motion Requesting Appointment of Counsel , Docket Entry No . 135, pp . 1-9 . Case 4:18-cv-04412 Document 167 Filed on 02/28/20 in TXSD Page 4 of 11 the Pack Unit xl The court issued an Order for briefing from the parties whether the plaintiffs ' remaining claim had become moot as the result of the plaintiffs ' transfer to the Pack Unit .l2 Director Collier and Warden McKee have responded with Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs have obtained the relief sought w ith regard to their only remaining claim and that this case should be dismissed as moot pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civ il Procedure x 3 The plaintiffs have responded with Plaintiffs ' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dism iss Plaintiffs ' Remaining Claim as Moot (nplaintiff's Response'o , arguing that their transfer to the Pack Unit should not moot their claim because there are many other (''1 200-plus'') inmates remaining at the Luther Unit who are ustill being held in unconstitutional conditions of confinement .'rld In support of this argument , the p laintiffs have filed Plaintiffs ' Notice Plaintiffs ' the Court and Parties Supplement to Their (uplaintiffs' Notice'') and Response in Opposition to Defendants ' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs ' Remaining Claim as Moot ('Aplaintiffs' Supplement'o , which include additional documentation llsee Change of Addresses, Docket Entry No . 139 , p . Docket Entry No . 144 , p . 1 . and l2see Order , Docket Entry No . 140, pp . l3see Defendants' Motion to Dism iss , Docket Entry No . 141 , pP ' 3-7 . M see Plaintiffs ' Response , Docket Entry No . 156, p . Case 4:18-cv-04412 Document 167 Filed on 02/28/20 in TXSD Page 5 of 11 regarding conditions of confinement at the Luther Unit and complaints about the Pack Unit .l5 Plaintiffs have also filed a Motion for Joinder of Parties and a First Amended Motion for Joinder of Parties for the purpose of adding other inmates as p laintiffs and Pack Un it Warden Robert Herrera as a defendant despite the fact that there are no claims pending in this lawsuit concerning conditions at that facility xG The plaintiffs have also filed Plaintiffs' Motion for Injunctive Relief, which alleges retaliation , confiscation of legal materials , and restrictions on their ability to access the 1aw library at the Luther Unitx ? The plaintiffs further allege that since being transferred to the Pack Unit, prison officials have interfered with their mail and their ability to communicate with each otherx S The l5see Plaintiffs ' Notice , Docket Entry No . 157 ; Plaintiffs' Supp lement , Docket Entry No . 158 . l6see Plaintiffs' Motion for Joinder of Parties , Docket Entry No . 159 , pp . 1-11; Plaintiffs' First Amended Motion for Joinder of Parties, Docket Entry No . 165, pp . 1-29 . The p roposed new plaintiffs include four inmates assigned to the Luther Unit, including Adam Walker (TDCJ #01897234), Travis Hendley (TDCJ #01669851), John Padilla (TDCJ #02191728), Brian Quintanilla (TDCJ #0211859), and one inmate who is assigned to the Pack Unit, Ronald Catt (TDCJ #01909438). None of these inmates have signed the motions or provided any statement indicating that they wish to join this lawsu it . l7See Plaintiffs' Motion for Injunctive Relief, Docket Entry No . 162 , pp . 1-23 . l8see id. at 23-29. The court takes judicial notice of the record in this case , which shows that the plaintiffs have filed numerous well-researched pleadings and subm issions that have been (continued - .) Case 4:18-cv-04412 Document 167 Filed on 02/28/20 in TXSD Page 6 of 11 defendants oppose the plaintiffs ' attempt to add new parties and claims at this late date and have filed a motion to strike those submissions .lg II. Discussion The defendants have moved to dismiss this action pursuant to Rule 12(b) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the plaintiffs' remaining claim for injunctive relief concerning conditions of confinement at the Luther Unit is now moot .20 nA case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case .'' Home Builders Ass'n of Mississippi, Inc . v . citv o f - - - Madison . Mississippi, l43 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also National Football League Players Ass 'n v . National Football Leaque , 874 F .3d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 2017) C'When courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over l8t.- continued) supported by thousands of pages of exh ibits and that they have not been prejudiced as the result of missing any deadlines. As a result , the p laintiffs have not been denied access to the courts in connection with this case . See Jones v . Greninqer , l88 F .3d 322, 325-26 (5th Cir. 1999)7 see also Lewis v . Casev, ll6 S . Ct . 2174, 2180 (1996) (observing that there is no uabstract, freestanding right to a 1aw library or legal assistance' ' for prison inmates). l9see Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs ' Supplemental Response and Exhibits (Docket Entry Nos. 157 Through 158) and Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Joinder EDocket Entry No. 159), Docket Entry No. 160, pp . 1-6. 20see Defendants ' Motion to Dismiss, Docket Entry No . pp ' 3-4 . Case 4:18-cv-04412 Document 167 Filed on 02/28/20 in TXSD Page 7 of 11 a case, they lack the power to adjudicate the case.''). The party seeking to assert jurisdiction bears the burden of proving its existence . See Stiftunq v . Plains Marketinq , L .P ., 603 F .3d 295, 297 (5th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Article III of the United States Constitution limits federal jurisdiction to ''cases'' and l'controversies.'' Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, l36 5 663, 669 (2016) (quoting U .S. Constw Art. 111, The Supreme Court has uinterpreted this requirement to demand that an actual controversy be extant at all stages of review , not merely at the time the complaint is filed .'' Id . (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). A case becomes moot and no longer presents an actual case or controversy for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction under Article III uwhen the issues presented are no longer 'live ' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome .'' A lreadv , LLC v Nike , Inc w 726-27 (2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Fifth Circuit has consistently recognized that where a prisoner challenges conditions of confinement at prison facility particular uEtlhe transfer of a prisoner out of Ethat facility) often will render his claims for injunctive relief moot.'' Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 74l (5th Cir . 2002); see also Herman v . Holiday , 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir . 2001) (noting that plaintiff's transfer to a different prison facility rendered his Case 4:18-cv-04412 Document 167 Filed on 02/28/20 in TXSD Page 8 of 11 claims for declaratory and injunctive relief moot); Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock County, Texas, 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991) (holding that an inmate's transfer from county jail to state prison rendered moot his claims for injunctive relief) (citing Beck v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 759, 762 (5th Cir . 1988))7 Hernandez v . Garrison, F.2d 291, 293 (5th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (holding that a prisoner 's Eighth Amendment claims , including allegations of overcrowding and denial of adequate medical treatment, were moot after the plaintiff was transferred to another correctional facility and the only remedy he sought was a transfer) Because all of the remaining plaintiffs have been transferred to the Pack Unit and are no longer subject to the complained of conditions of confinement at the Luther Unit, where they formerly resided, their claim for injunctive relief is subject to dismissal as moot. There is an exception the mootness doctrine for a controversy that is ''capable of repetition , yet evading review .'' United States v . Sanchez-Gomez, 138 S . Ct. 1532, 1540 (2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To fit within this exception , a prisoner who has been transferred out of a particular facility that he has taken issue w ith ''must show either a 'demonstrated probability ' or a 'reasonable expectation' that he would be transferred back to (that facility) or released and reincarcerated there.'' Oliver, 276 F.3d at (quoting Murphv v . Hunt, 102 S. Ct . 1181, 1184 (1982)); see also Sanchez-Gomez, 138 Case 4:18-cv-04412 Document 167 Filed on 02/28/20 in TXSD Page 9 of 11 S. Ct. at 1540 (requiring a ureasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again'') (quotation omitted). None of the plaintiffs have suggested that there is any likelihood that they will be returned to the Luther Un it, where the challenged conditions of confinement occurred . Speculation that they m ight be moved from the Pack Unit in the future is not sufficient to make this showing . See Herman , 238 F .3d at 665 (citing Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d (5th Cir. 1987)) Instead , the p laintiffs argue that the case is not moot because there are many other inmates housed at the Luther Un it who are 'lstill being held in unconstitutional conditions of confinement .r'zl This argument is not sufficient to establish that the exception applies .22 See Sanchez-Gomez, 138 S . nthe 'mere presence of in at 1540 (explaining that allegations ' that might, resolved (the plaintiffs'l favor, benefit other similarly situated 2lsee Plaintiffs' Response , Docket Entry No . 156 , p . 22For reasons set forth prev iou sly , the court has denied the p laintiffs' request to pursue this case as a class action . See Memorandum Opinion and Order, Docket Entry No . 120, pp . 18-21 . As pro se litigants, the plaintiffs in this case are not authorized to represent other inmates . See Gonzales v . Wyatt , l57 F .3d 1016, 1021 (5th Cir. 1998) (%'!I)n federal court a party can represent him self or be represented by an attorney , but cannot be represented by a nonlawyer.r') (citations omitted); Martin v . City of Alexandria, 198 F. App 'x 344, 346 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (citing Iannaccone v . Law, 142 F.3d 553, 558 (2d Cir . 1998) (nlBlecause pro se means to appear for one's self, a person may not appear on another person's behalf in the other's cause''.)). Case 4:18-cv-04412 Document 167 Filed on 02/28/20 in TXSD Page 10 of 11 individuals cannot 'save (the plaintiffs') suit from mootness once thelirl individual claim lsl' have dissipated'') (quoting Genesis Healthcare Corp . v. Svmczvk, l33 S . Ct. 1523, 1529 (2013)): see also Yarls v. Bunton, 9O5 F .3d 905, 909 (5th Cir. 2018) (''No matter how vehemently the parties continue to dispute the lawfulness of the conduct that precip itated the lawsu it, the case is moot if the dispute is no longer embedded in any actual controversy about the plaintiffs' particular legal rights.'') (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) Because the remaining plaintiffs do not demonstrate that there is a live issue for rev iew with respect to their only remaining claim for injunctive relief from conditions of confinement at the Luther Un it, this action is moot and must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. l2 (h ) (3). Although the plaintiffs have filed a motion for injunctive relief regarding new claims and a motion to join other Luther Unit inmates as new plaintiffs in this case, they have not demonstrated that joinder is permissible under the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . See Fed . Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs' request for leave to join new parties and add new claims to this lawsuit will be denied . 111. Conclusion and Order Accordingly , based on the foregoing , the court ORDERS as follows : Case 4:18-cv-04412 Document 167 Filed on 02/28/20 in TXSD Page 11 of 11 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs ' Remaining Claim as Moot (Docket Entry No. 141) is GRANTED. This action will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' Motion Requesting Appointment of Counsel (Docket Entry No 135)7 Plaintiffs' Motion for Joinder of Parties (Docket Entry No. 159)7 Plaintiffs' Motion for Injunctive Relief (Docket Entry No . 162): and Plaintiffs' First Amended Motion for Joinder of Parties (Docket Entry No . 165) are DENIED . 4. Because the court has denied the plaintiffs' request for joinder of new parties and claims, Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Supplemental Response and Exhibits (Docket Entry No . 160) is DENIED as unnecessary. The Clerk will send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the parties. SIGNED at Houston , Texas , on this 28th day of February , 2020 . e A SIM LAKE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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.
