IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

RODERICKA DAVIS, § 

Dall. Cnty. Jail BookIn No. 22015956, § 

 § 

Plaintiff, § 

§ 

V. § No. 3:22-cv-1785-B-BN 

§ 

OFFICER THOMAS, § 

§ 

Defendant. § 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Rodericka Davis, an inmate at the Dallas County jail, brings claims 

through an amended civil rights complaint against at least one officer at the jail, 

seeking “compensation” and alleging that the officer was “very disrespectful and 

unprofessional” and “threaten[ed]” and “curse[d]” at inmates, including Davis. Dkt. 

No. 13. 

Following screening in the division where Davis and others filed this lawsuit, 

her claims were transferred to the Dallas Division, and United States District Judge 

Jane J. Boyle referred them to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for 

further screening under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference. 

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, where prisoners – whether they are 

incarcerated or detained pending trial – seek relief from a governmental entity or 

employee, a district court must, on initial screening, identify cognizable claims or 

dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that “is frivolous, malicious, 

or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted” or “seeks monetary relief 

Case 3:22-cv-01785-B-BN Document 21 Filed 08/17/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 79
- 2 - 

from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 

Applicable to Davis’s civil rights complaint seeking compensation for the 

officer’s behavior, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) “applies to all federal civil actions in which a 

prisoner alleges a constitutional violation, making compensatory damages for mental 

or emotional injuries non-recoverable, absent physical injury.” Geiger v. Jowers, 404 

F.3d 371, 375 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (collecting cases). 

So, Davis’s “failure to allege physical injury falls squarely under § 1997e(e)’s 

bar, precluding [the] recovery of compensatory damages for emotional or mental 

injuries allegedly suffered as a result of the purported [constitutional] violation.” Id.

Cf. Hutchins v. McDaniel, 512 F.3d 193, 197 (5th Cir. 2007) (“§ 1997e(e) turns on the 

relief sought, [so] the physical injury requirement does not bar declaratory or 

injunctive relief for violations of a prisoner’s Constitutional rights.” (citing Geiger, 

404 F.3d at 375; Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 719 (5th Cir. 1999))). 

And, although Davis does not request declaratory or injunctive relief, had she 

– or should she seek leave to amend to request that relief – her claims are still subject 

to dismissal. See, e.g., Field v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., Inc., 364 F. App’x 927, 930 (5th 

Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (“On his claim[] ... that he was verbally and mentally abused 

by the staff and other offenders, Field cannot present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. 

See Robertson v. Plano City of Texas, 70 F.3d 21, 24 (5th Cir. 1995) (verbal threats do 

not rise to the level of a constitutional violation).”). 

Recommendation

The Court should dismiss this case with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

Case 3:22-cv-01785-B-BN Document 21 Filed 08/17/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 80
- 3 - 

A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on 

all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these 

findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections 

within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV.

P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or 

recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and 

specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation 

where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by 

reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure 

to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the 

factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or 

adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. 

United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996). 

DATED: August 17, 2022 

 _________________________________________ 

DAVID L. HORAN 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cv-01785-B-BN Document 21 Filed 08/17/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 81