Opinion
No. 2:04-CV-0089.
July 12, 2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff AL KEMP, III, acting pro se and while detained in the Hutchinson County Jail, has filed suit pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983 complaining against the above-referenced defendant and has been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis.
By his complaint, plaintiff claims that he injured his back in a fall when he slipped on a puddle of water which had leaked from the shower.
Plaintiff requests monetary compensation for having been placed in an unsafe environment.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
When a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity, the Court must evaluate the complaint and dismiss it without service of process, Ali v. Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 1990), if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915A; 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). The same standards will support dismissal of a suit brought under any federal law by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility, where such suit concerns prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. 1997e(c)(1). A Spears hearing need not be conducted for every pro se complaint. Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 483 n. 4 (5th Cir. 1991).
A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact, Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114, 115 (5th Cir. 1993); see, Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992).
Cf, Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1120 (5th Cir. 1986) ("Of course, our discussion of Spears should not be interpreted to mean that all or even most prisoner claims require or deserve a Spears hearing. A district court should be able to dismiss as frivolous a significant number of prisoner suits on the complaint alone or the complaint together with the Watson questionnaire.").
The District Judge has reviewed plaintiff's pleadings to determine if his claims present grounds for dismissal or should proceed to answer by defendants.
THE LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, Title 42, United States Code, section 1997e(a), provides that "[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [Title 42, United States Code, section 1983,] or any other Federal Law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). "[T]he PLRA's exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong." Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 122 S.Ct. 983, 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002).
On his complaint form, plaintiff indicates he has not exhausted the grievance procedure at the jail, and no copies of any grievances have been submitted with the complaint. Thus, it appears plaintiff has not grieved concerning the claims he asserts in the instant suit but, instead, filed suit in federal court without first exhausting administrative remedies.
By choosing to file and pursue suit before meeting the section 1997e exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement, plaintiff has sought relief to which he was not entitled. Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292 (5th Cir. 1998). Consequently, these claims lack an arguable basis in law and are frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).
In any event, plaintiff has not alleged facts showing deliberate indifference by the defendant to his health or physical safety. Instead, plaintiff's allegations resemble tort claims for negligence; however, section 1983 imposes liability for deprivation of constitutionally protected rights, not for violations of tort duties of care. Griffith v. Johnston, 899 F.2d 1427, 1435 (5th Cir. 1990); see, also, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331-34, 106 S.Ct. 662, 664-67, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986); Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993) ("negligent medical care does not constitute a valid section 1983 claim."). Consequently, plaintiff's claim lacks an arguable basis in law and is frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's claim lacks an arguable basis in law and is frivolous.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, sections 1915A and 1915(e)(2), as well as Title 42, United States Code, section 1997e(c)(1), plaintiff's civil rights suit is in all things DENIED and is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AS FRIVOLOUS.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
All pending motions are DENIED.
The Clerk will mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiff, and to any attorney of record by first class mail. The Clerk will also mail a copy to the Pro Se Clerk at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division.
IT IS SO ORDERED.