Opinion
No. 3:01-CV-2057-H
February 7, 2002
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) and an Order of the Court in implementation thereof, subject cause has previously been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, as evidenced by her signature hereto, are as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. Background Nature of the Case: This is a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Parties: Plaintiff is an inmate incarcerated in the Dallas County Jail. He sues the Dallas County Jail Medical Department. In an effort to precisely ascertain the basis for his complaint the Court sent out a Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire. In answer to such Questionnaire, plaintiff clarified that his complaint is based upon the negligence of defendant. ( See Answers to Questions 2 and 3 of Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire.) No process has been issued in this case.
Statement of the Case: In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that he was injured when defendant placed him in the general prison population despite his complete disability. (Compl. at 4.) In answer to inquiries of the Court, he clarifies that his claims are based upon the negligence of defendant. (Answers to Questions 2 and 3 of Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire.)
II. Screening for Frivolity
The Court has permitted plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis. His complaint is thus subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). As a prisoner seeking redress from an officer or employee of a governmental entity, plaintiff's complaint is also subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A regardless of whether he proceeds in forma pauperis. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1041 (1999). Both § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b) provide for sua sponte dismissal, if the Court finds the complaint "frivolous" or if it "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." A claim is frivolous, if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Smith v. Winter, 782 F.2d 508, 511-12 (5th Cir. 1986); Henrise v. Horvath, 94 F. Supp.2d 768, 769 (N.D. Tex. 2000).
Plaintiff brings his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute "provides a federal cause of action for the deprivation, under color of law, of a citizen's `rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws' of the United States." Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107, 132 (1994). It "afford[s] redress for violations of federal statutes, as well as of constitutional norms." Id .
A. Negligence
Plaintiff's claim is based solely upon the negligence of defendant. "Section 1983 imposes liability for violation of rights protected by the Constitution, [however,] not for violations of duties of care arising out of [state] tort law." Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 146 (1979). Mere negligence is not actionable under § 1983. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986) (concluding that "the Due Process Clause is simply not implicated by a negligent act of an official causing unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty, or property"); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 347-48 (1986) (stating that "[r]espondents' lack of due care . . . simply does not approach the sort of abusive government conduct that the Due Process Clause was designed to prevent"); Lemoine v. New Horizons Ranch Ctr., Inc., 174 F.3d 629, 635 (5th Cir. 1999) (stating that "negligence on the part of state officials does not suffice to make out any due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment"). Negligence is simply insufficient to impose liability under § 1983. Oliver v. Collins, 914 F.2d 56, 60 (5th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, plaintiff's claim of negligence fails. As he asserts no other claim, his complaint does not survive summary dismissal.
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the District Court DISMISS plaintiff's complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b).