Opinion
2:03-CV-0431.
April 27, 2004
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff JOHNNIE LEE RICHARDS, acting pro se and while a prisoner incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, has filed suit pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983 complaining against the above-referenced defendants and has been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis.
By his original complaint, plaintiff claims his mail to his aunt has been stopped or intercepted; he is denied adequate medical care; he is exposed to excessively cold air and given only a single blanket; he is denied adequate access to the courts by the refusal to provide him with lawbooks; his incoming legal mail has been intercepted and his outgoing legal mail has been stopped; officials refuse to respond to his grievances; officials refuse to correct plaintiff's mandatory parole release date; plaintiff was assaulted on April 18, 2003, by prison guards, plaintiff was written a false disciplinary case based on the incident, resulting in the loss of goodtime; and plaintiff cannot practice his religion due to drugs being placed in his food.
Plaintiff requests an award of costs and damages in an unspecified amount.
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).The Magistrate Judge has reviewed the facts alleged by plaintiff to determine if his claim presents grounds for dismissal or should proceed to answer by defendants.
THE LAW AND ANALYSIS
Plaintiff sues three defendants, GARY JOHNSON, the OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN, and the CHIEF OF CLASSIFICATION, all in Huntsville. It is clear that plaintiff's claims are based upon these defendants' supervisory positions and their failure to correct the alleged wrongs; however, the acts of subordinates trigger no individual section 1983 liability for supervisory officers. Champagne v. Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office, 188 F.3d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1999). A supervisory official may be held liable only when he is either personally involved in the acts causing the deprivation of a person's constitutional rights, or there is a sufficient causal connection between the official's act and the constitutional violation sought to be redressed. Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 1987); Douthit v. Jones, 641 F.2d 345, 346 (5th Cir. 1981) ( per curiam). Plaintiff has alleged no fact demonstrating personal involvement by these officials and has alleged no fact showing any causal connection between their acts or omissions and the alleged constitutional violation. Consequently, plaintiff's allegations against these defendants fail to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
The Court notes plaintiff has submitted an April 21, 2004, pleading entitled "Plaintiff [sic] Motion for Permission of Leave of Court to Amend Complaint" by which plaintiff appears to seek permission to add six defendants identified as follows: B.C. Mailroom Dept.; B.C. Law Library Dept.; B.C. High Security Administration; Chief of State Classification; B.C. Medical Dept.; and Chief of Inspector General of Invest. Div.
To the extent plaintiff has designated a specific individual, that is, with respect to defendants Chief of State Classification and Chief of Inspector General of Invest. Div., plaintiff alleges no fact showing personal involvement by one or both of these defendants in the matters of which he complains and, further, makes no allegation that either or both of them implemented an unconstitutional policy or policies which causally produced the alleged violations of plaintiff's rights. Thus, plaintiff has failed to state a claim against either of these defendants on which relief can be granted
As to the remaining defendants, plaintiff has not sufficiently identified any one or more defendants and has utterly failed to allege facts defining or supporting a claim of any sort against them. In the context of actions arising under Title 42, United States Code, section 1983, a plaintiff is required to state specific facts rather than conclusory allegations in his complaint. O'Quinn v. Manuel, 773 F.2d 605 (5th Cir. 1985), as amended. Further, a district court must insist that a plaintiff suing a public official under section 1983 file a short and plain statement of his complaint, which statement must rest on more than mere conclusions. Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, 1433 (5th Cir. 1995).
As to each defendant plaintiff is attempting to sue, plaintiff must allege each act or omission by that defendant which forms the basis for his claim of liability, as well as the approximate date of such act or omission, the surrounding facts and circumstances, and how it harmed plaintiff. Plaintiff has not alleged with factual particularity against any of the proposed defendants and has, therefore, failed to state a claim against them.
Any attempt to cure the deficiencies set forth above should be submitted on a fully-completed complaint form bearing the title "Amended Complaint" and submitted to the Court within the response period for objections to this Report and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above and 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), it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge to the United States District Judge that the Civil Rights Complaint filed pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983, by plaintiff JOHNNIE LEE RICHARDS be DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED.
The United States District Clerk shall mail a copy of this Report and Recommendation to plaintiff and to each attorney of record by certified mail, return receipt requested. Any party may object to the proposed findings and to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 4(a)(1) of Miscellaneous Order No. 6, as authorized by Local Rule 3.1, Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Texas. Any such objections shall be in writing and shall specifically identify the portions of the findings, recommendation, or report to which objection is made, and set out fully the basis for each objection. Objecting parties shall file the written objections with the Clerk of the Court and serve a copy of such objections on the Magistrate Judge and on all other parties. The failure to timely file written objections to the proposed factual findings, legal conclusions, and the recommendation contained in this report shall bar an aggrieved party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) ( en banc).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.