Anderson v. Pratt

10 Citing cases

  1. Thompson v. Crnkovich

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-055-BL (N.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2017)   Cited 17 times

    385 F.3d 503, 526 (5th Cir. 2004) (holding that prison supervisory officials "reasonab[ly] discharge[d] . . . their duty to protect the inmates in their care" where they "responded to [plaintiff's] complaints by referring the matter for further investigation or taking similar administrative steps"); see also Poullard v. Blanco, No. Civ. A. 05-1019-P, 2006 WL 1675218, at *5 (W.D. La. June 9, 2006) (dismissing claim of failure to provide adequate medical care against supervisory officials who "acted consistent with their roles in the prison administration by addressing plaintiff's grievance or referring him to an avenue by which he might obtain relief"); Jones v. Livingston, No. Civ. A. C-05-520, 2005 WL 3618316, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2005) (holding that failure to provide adequate medical care claim asserted against supervisory prison official should be dismissed because "the fact that he did not respond to, or denied, plaintiff's grievances does not, alone, state a claim . . ."); Anderson v. Pratt, No.3:02-CV-455-L, 2002 WL 1159980, at *3 (N.D. Tex. May 29, 2002) (Warden's review and denial of grievance, all of which occurred after the events at issue, did not show personal involvement in deprivation of constitutional rights). Because Defendants Batts, Keller and Connor were not personally involved in Plaintiff's medical treatment, and because there is no respondeat superior liability in a Bivens case, Plaintiff's claims against under the Eighth Amendment against these defendants must be dismissed.

  2. Rodriguez v. Cain

    NO. 10-0736-FJP-DLD (M.D. La. Aug. 31, 2011)

    The mere fact that the plaintiff may have filed one or more administrative grievances at the prison, however, or that the defendants' respective offices may have received and processed same, does not support a finding that the defendants were place on actual notice of the plaintiff's claims, particularly at a correctional facility housing more than 5,000 inmates. See Anderson v. Pratt, 2002 WL 1159980 (N.D. Tex., May 29, 2002) (finding that receipt and denial of an inmate's grievance by the warden's office did not establish personal involvement on the part of the warden in the alleged deprivation of the inmate's constitutional rights). Further, the law is clear that there is no constitutional violation in any alleged failure to investigate and/or respond favorably to an inmate's administrative grievances in any event.

  3. Moore v. Banks

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09cv104-MTP (S.D. Miss. Sep. 8, 2010)   Cited 1 times

    These allegations are insufficient to establish a constitutional violation. See, e.g., Dehghani v. Vogelgesang, 226 Fed. Appx. 404, 406 (5th Cir. Apr. 17, 2007) (holding that plaintiff's allegation that warden failed to adequately investigate his grievance did not amount to a constitutional violation); Hailey v. Savers, 240 Fed. Appx. 670, 672 (5th Cir. July 18, 2007) ( per curiam) (affirming dismissal of prison medical administrator because plaintiff "failed to allege specific facts to demonstrate that [administrator] had personal involvement. . . ."); Mosley v. Thornton, 2005 WL 1645781, at * 5 (E.D. La. June 20, 2005) ("the fact that the Sheriff responded to plaintiff's appeal is insufficient to support a constitutional claim against the Sheriff."); Jones v. Livingston, 2005 WL 3618316, at * 3 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2005) ("the fact that [supervisory prison official] did not respond to, or denied, plaintiff's grievances does not, alone, state a claim . . ."); Anderson v. Pratt, 2002 WL 1159980, at * 3 (N.D. Tex. May 29, 2002) (Warden's review and denial of grievance did not show personal involvement in deprivation of constitutional rights). Further, to the extent that Plaintiff asserts claims against Warden Banks in her official capacity, as with Defendant Walker, Plaintiff has failed to prove that a policy, custom or practice of WCCF was the "moving force" behind the alleged constitutional violations.

  4. JONES v. EPPS

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10cv77-MTP (S.D. Miss. Aug. 27, 2010)   Cited 1 times

    ient for imposing liability under section 1983. See Dehghani v. Vogelgesang, 226 F. App'x 404, 406 (5th Cir. Apr. 17, 2007) (holding that plaintiff's allegation that warden failed to adequately investigate his grievance did not amount to a constitutional violation); Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 526 (5th Cir. 2004) (holding that prison supervisory officials "reasonab[ly] discharge[d] . . . their duty to protect the inmates in their care" where they "responded to [plaintiff's] complaints by referring the matter for further investigation or taking similar administrative steps"); Mosley v. Thornton, 2005 WL 1645781, at * 5 (E.D. La. June 20, 2005) ("the fact that the Sheriff responded to plaintiff's appeal is insufficient to support a constitutional claim against the Sheriff"); Jones v. Livingston, 2005 WL 3618316, at * 3 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2005) ("the fact that [supervisory prison official] did not respond to, or denied, plaintiff's grievances does not, alone, state a claim . . ."); Anderson v. Pratt, 2002 WL 1159980, at *3 (N.D. Tex. May 29, 2002) (Warden's review and denial of grievance did not show personal involvement in deprivation of constitutional rights). Moreover, Plaintiff has no constitutional right to a grievance procedure, and has no due process liberty interest right to having his grievance resolved to his satisfaction.

  5. Adams v. Jacqueline Banks

    663 F. Supp. 2d 485 (S.D. Miss. 2009)   Cited 1 times

    ard v. Blanco, 2006 WL 1675218, at * 5 (W.D. La. June 9, 2006) (dismissing claim of failure to provide adequate medical care against supervisory officials who "acted consistent with their roles in the prison administration by addressing plaintiff's grievance or referring him to an avenue by which he might obtain relief"); Mosley v. Thornton, 2005 WL 1645781, at * 5 (E.D. La. June 20, 2005) ("Plaintiff merely alleges that the Warden was responsible for Thornton and the medical department and that he responded to plaintiff's appeal . . . However, the fact that the Sheriff responded to plaintiff's appeal is insufficient to support a constitutional claim against the Sheriff."); Jones v. Livingston, 2005 WL 3618316, at * 3 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2005) (holding that failure to provide adequate medical care claim asserted against supervisory prison official should be dismissed because "the fact that he did not respond to, or denied, plaintiff's grievances does not, alone, state a claim . . ."); Anderson v. Pratt, 2002 WL 1159980, at * 3 (N.D. Tex. May 29, 2002) (Warden's review and denial of grievance did not show personal involvement in deprivation of constitutional rights); Alexander v. Fed'l Bureau of Prisons, 227 F.Supp. 2d 657, 665-66 (E.D. Ky. 2002) (Warden's signing an administrative remedy response prepared by staff did not establish constitutional violation); Lamkey v. Roth, 1997 WL 89125, at * 5 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 26, 1997) (Warden's signing of grievance report "concurring in the grievance officer's finding" insufficient to establish personal involvement). RECOMMENDATION

  6. Barnes v. Banks

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-cv-102-DCB-MTP (S.D. Miss. Sep. 21, 2009)   Cited 1 times

    Furthermore, a prisoner does not have a constitutional right to a grievance procedure, nor does a prisoner have "a federally protected liberty interest in having [his] grievance resolved to his satisfaction." See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373-74 (5th Cir. 2005); see also, Jones v. Livingston, 2005 WL 3618316, at *3 (S.D.Tex. Jan. 6, 2005) ("the fact that [supervisory prison official] did not respond to, or denied, plaintiff's grievances does not, alone, state a claim . . ."); Anderson v. Pratt, 2002 WL 1159980, at *3 (N.D.Tex. May 29, 2002) (Warden's review and denial of grievance did not show personal involvement in deprivation of constitutional rights). Since Plaintiff "relies on a legally nonexistent interest, any alleged due process violation arising from the alleged failure to investigate his grievances is indisputably meritless."

  7. King v. Captain Brenda Sims

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07cv136-MTP (S.D. Miss. Aug. 14, 2009)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that reclassification, reassignment and loss of canteen, phone and visitation privileges did not constitute a violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights

    hat prison supervisory officials "reasonab[ly] discharge[d] . . . their duty to protect the inmates in their care" where they "responded to [plaintiff's] complaints by referring the matter for further investigation or taking similar administrative steps."); Poullard v. Blanco, 2006 WL 1675218, at * 5 (W.D. La. June 9, 2006) (dismissing claim of failure to provide adequate medical care against supervisory officials who "acted consistent with their roles in the prison administration by addressing plaintiff's grievance or referring him to an avenue by which he might obtain relief"); Mosley v. Thornton, 2005 WL 1645781, at * 5 (E.D. La. June 20, 2005) ("the fact that the Sheriff responded to plaintiff's appeal is insufficient to support a constitutional claim against the Sheriff."); Jones v. Livingston, 2005 WL 3618316, at * 3 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2005) ("the fact that [supervisory prison official] did not respond to, or denied, plaintiff's grievances does not, alone, state a claim . . ."); Anderson v. Pratt, 2002 WL 1159980, at * 3 (N.D. Tex. May 29, 2002) (Warden's review and denial of grievance did not show personal involvement in deprivation of constitutional rights); Alexander v. Fed'l Bureau of Prisons, 227 F.Supp. 2d 657, 665-66 (E.D. Ky. 2002) (Warden's signing an administrative remedy response prepared by staff did not establish constitutional violation); Lamkey v. Roth, 1997 WL 89125, at * 5 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 26, 1997) (Warden's signing of grievance report "concurring in the grievance officer's finding" insufficient to establish personal involvement). Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's claims against Defendants relating to the RVR's he received should be dismissed with prejudice.

  8. ADAMS v. EPPS

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:08-CV-154-DCB-MTP (S.D. Miss. Jul. 23, 2009)

    ard v. Blanco, 2006 WL 1675218, at * 5 (W.D. La. June 9, 2006) (dismissing claim of failure to provide adequate medical care against supervisory officials who "acted consistent with their roles in the prison administration by addressing plaintiff's grievance or referring him to an avenue by which he might obtain relief"); Mosley v. Thornton, 2005 WL 1645781, at * 5 (E.D. La. June 20, 2005) ("Plaintiff merely alleges that the Warden was responsible for Thornton and the medical department and that he responded to plaintiff's appeal . . . However, the fact that the Sheriff responded to plaintiff's appeal is insufficient to support a constitutional claim against the Sheriff."); Jones v. Livingston, 2005 WL 3618316, at * 3 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2005) (holding that failure to provide adequate medical care claim asserted against supervisory prison official should be dismissed because "the fact that he did not respond to, or denied, plaintiff's grievances does not, alone, state a claim . . ."); Anderson v. Pratt, 2002 WL 1159980, at * 3 (N.D. Tex. May 29, 2002) (Warden's review and denial of grievance did not show personal involvement in deprivation of constitutional rights); Alexander v. Fed'l Bureau of Prisons, 227 F.Supp. 2d 657, 665-66 (E.D. Ky. 2002) (Warden's signing an administrative remedy response prepared by staff did not establish constitutional violation); Lamkey v. Roth, 1997 WL 89125, at * 5 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 26, 1997) (Warden's signing of grievance report "concurring in the grievance officer's finding" insufficient to establish personal involvement). RECOMMENDATION

  9. Rufus v. Bailey

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:08cv240-DCB-MTP (S.D. Miss. Apr. 30, 2009)

    However, this alone is insufficient to establish liability. See, e.g., Mosley v. Thornton, 2005 WL 1645781, at * 5 (E.D. La. June 20, 2005) ("Plaintiff merely alleges that the Warden was responsible for Thornton and the medical department and that he responded to plaintiff's appeal . . . However, the fact that the Sheriff responded to plaintiff's appeal is insufficient to support a constitutional claim against the Sheriff."); Jones v. Livingston, 2005 WL 3618316, at * 3 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2005) (holding that failure to provide adequate medical care claim asserted against supervisory prison official should be dismissed because "the fact that he did not respond to, or denied, plaintiff's grievances does not, alone, state a claim . . ."); Anderson v. Pratt, 2002 WL 1159980, at * 3 (N.D. Tex. May 29, 2002) (Warden's review and denial of grievance did not show personal involvement in deprivation of constitutional rights); Alexander v. Fed'l Bureau of Prisons, 227 F.Supp. 2d 657, 665-66 (E.D. Ky. 2002) (Warden's signing an administrative remedy response prepared by staff did not establish constitutional violation); Lamkey v. Roth, 1997 WL 89125, at * 5 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 26, 1997) (Warden's signing of grievance report "concurring in the grievance officer's finding" insufficient to establish personal involvement). In addition, the court notes that it is unlikely that it would have personal jurisdiction over Mr. Holt, whom Plaintiff alleges to be the Southeast Regional Director of the BOP. The BOP's Southeast Regional Office is located in Atlanta, Georgia. Seehttp://www.bop.gov/locations/maps/SER.jsp (last accessed Apr. 30, 2009). Courts have held that mere allegations relating to a BOP official's decisions regarding an inmate's administrative appeal outside the forum state, and other supervis

  10. Eaton v. Banks

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:08cv2-DCB-MTP (S.D. Miss. Apr. 22, 2009)

    ard v. Blanco, 2006 WL 1675218, at * 5 (W.D. La. June 9, 2006) (dismissing claim of failure to provide adequate medical care against supervisory officials who "acted consistent with their roles in the prison administration by addressing plaintiff's grievance or referring him to an avenue by which he might obtain relief"); Mosley v. Thornton, 2005 WL 1645781, at * 5 (E.D. La. June 20, 2005) ("Plaintiff merely alleges that the Warden was responsible for Thornton and the medical department and that he responded to plaintiff's appeal . . . However, the fact that the Sheriff responded to plaintiff's appeal is insufficient to support a constitutional claim against the Sheriff."); Jones v. Livingston, 2005 WL 3618316, at * 3 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2005) (holding that failure to provide adequate medical care claim asserted against supervisory prison official should be dismissed because "the fact that he did not respond to, or denied, plaintiff's grievances does not, alone, state a claim . . ."); Anderson v. Pratt, 2002 WL 1159980, at * 3 (N.D. Tex. May 29, 2002) (Warden's review and denial of grievance did not show personal involvement in deprivation of constitutional rights); Alexander v. Fed'l Bureau of Prisons, 227 F.Supp. 2d 657, 665-66 (E.D. Ky. 2002) (Warden's signing an administrative remedy response prepared by staff did not establish constitutional violation); Lamkey v. Roth, 1997 WL 89125, at * 5 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 26, 1997) (Warden's signing of grievance report "concurring in the grievance officer's finding" insufficient to establish personal involvement). Defendant Banks provided the Second Step Response to Plaintiff's ARP: