Opinion
Civil Action 1:22-CV-565
11-30-2023
BRIAN MELONSON v. ZENA STEPHENS, ET AL.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ZACK HAWHOM, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Brian Melonson, a prisoner confined at the Jefferson County Correctional Facility (JCCF), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Zena Stephens, the JCCF Infirmary Department, K. King, T. Theriot, and an unknown defendant.
This action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
Factual Background
Plaintiff states that he suffers from genital warts. Plaintiff alleges he received treatment for the medical condition while he was confined at the JCCF beginning in August of 2022, until he was released on bond in September of 2022. Plaintiff was taken back into custody on October 4, 2022. Since then, Plaintiff alleges he has not received any treatment for his medical condition.
Standard of Review
An in forma pauperis proceeding may be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
A complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); McCormick v. Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059, 1061 (5th Cir. 1997). A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). A complaint lacks an arguable basis in fact if, after providing the plaintiff the opportunity to present additional facts when necessary, the facts alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992).
A complaint does not need detailed factual allegations, but the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to show more than a speculative right to relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate if the complaint does not include enough facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Id. at 570. Conclusory allegations and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not suffice to prevent dismissal for failure to state a claim. Id. at 555. The plaintiff must plead facts that allow the court to “draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Analysis
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates a cause of action against any person who, acting under color of state law, causes another to be deprived of a federally protected constitutional right. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980); Phillips v. Monroe Cnty., 311 F.3d 369, 373 (5th Cir. 2002). Section 1983 provides:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any state . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or any other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws shall be liable to the party injured ....
Supervisory Liability
To successfully plead a cause of action in a civil rights case, Plaintiff must enunciate a set of facts that illustrate the defendants' participation in the alleged wrong. Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 793 (5th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff does not allege facts demonstrating that Defendant Stephens, the Sheriff of Jefferson County, was personally involved in his medical treatment. Rather, Plaintiff states that he is suing Defendant Stephens because of her supervisory position as the head of the jail.
Under § 1983, supervisory officials are not liable for subordinates' actions on any vicarious liability theory. Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 742 (5th Cir. 2002). A supervisor may be held liable only for implementing a policy that repudiates constitutional rights and the policy is the moving force of the constitutional violation. Id. Accepting Plaintiff's allegations as true, there is no basis to hold Stephens liable in a supervisory capacity because Plaintiff does not allege that she implemented a constitutionally-deficient policy that resulted in Plaintiff's injuries. Therefore, the claims against Defendant Stephens are frivolous and fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Jural Authority
Plaintiff has identified the JCCF Infirmary Department as a Defendant. The capacity of an entity to sue or be sued is determined by the law of the state in which the district court is held. FED. R. CIV. P. 17(b). There is no evidence that Jefferson County has taken steps to grant the infirmary department of the JCCF with jural authority. Thus, the JCCF Infirmary Department is not a legal entity capable of being sued. See Darby v. Pasadena Police Dep't, 939 F.2d 311, 314 (5th Cir. 1991) (holding that a lawsuit brought against the Pasadena Police Department was subject ot dismissal because the entity had no jural existence); Cleveland v. Liberty Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, No. 1:13-CV-20, 2014 WL 11858157, at *3 (E.D. Tex. May 5, 2014) (holding that the Liberty County Sheriff's Department is not a legal entity that has the capacity to be sued); Gibson v. Dallas Cnty. Jail Sys., No. 3:07-CV-490-L, 2007 WL 1576264, at #2 (N.D. Tex. May 31, 2007) (adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the claims against the Dallas County Jail and the Dallas County Jail Medical Department because they are not legal entities with jural authority).
Recommendation
The claims against Defendants Zena Stephens and the Jefferson County Correctional Facility Infirmary Department should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Objections
Within fourteen days after receipt of the magistrate judge's report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72.