Opinion
7:03-CV-228-R.
March 25, 2004
ORDER
Came on to be considered Defendants' motion to dismiss, filed on February 25, 2004, and the Court finds and orders as follows:
Plaintiff is an inmate confined in the Allred Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in Iowa Park, Texas. He claims that Defendants denied him access to the courts and engaged in unlawful retaliation against him. Defendants first seek dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against them in their official capacities.
To the extent that they are sued in their official capacities for monetary damages, Defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 24, 112 S.Ct. 358, 361-62 (1991). Therefore, Plaintiff's official capacity claims for monetary damages shall be dismissed. The Court notes that prospective injunctive relief against Defendants in their official capacities is a remedy remaining available to Plaintiff in this case.
Next, Defendants seek dismissal of the claims against Defendants Horton, Wathen and Thornton because there is no vicarious liability under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. With regard to Defendant Horton, the motion shall be granted. Plaintiff has alleged no facts which could establish any personal involvement on the part of Horton in the alleged deprivation. Wilson seeks to hold Horton liable because, as Chief Warden of the Allred Unit, Horton exercises supervisory power over his subordinates. Plaintiff's Answer to the Court's Question No. 6. Plaintiff cannot recover on a theory of respondeat superior. Horton cannot be held responsible for the alleged acts or omissions of his subordinates under § 1983. Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018 (1978).
With regard to Defendants Wathen and Thornton, Plaintiff has alleged facts which, taken as true, are sufficient to show personal involvement on the part of these two Defendants. Wilson claims that Wathen himself engaged in retaliation against him by moving him to an area housing inmate troublemakers and gang members immediately following a heated discussion regarding his writ writing activities. Plaintiff's Answer to the Court's Question No. 7. Wilson states a colorable claim against Defendant Thornton in that he alleges she personally directed the confiscation of his legal materials thereby denying him access to the Courts. Plaintiff's Answer to the Court's Question No. 8. Wilson claims that his federal habeas petition and related papers were confiscated and destroyed thereby making it impossible for him to litigate his claims. Plaintiff's Answer to the Court's Question No. 2. A review of the U.S. Party/Case Index reflects that Wilson has a habeas petition currently pending in the Eastern District of Texas. Wilson v. Dretke, 5:02-CV-91 (E.D. Tex.).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED in PART as follows:
1) All claims for monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacities are dismissed, and,
2) All claims against Defendant Danny Horton are hereby dismissed.
The remainder of Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.