IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WICHITA FALLS DIVISION

BRIAN G. OATMAN, §

No. 2097131 §

Plaintiff, §

§

V. § NO.7:22-CV-101-O

§

KYLE W. BURROSS, §

ET AL., §

Defendants. §

ORDER RE CORRESPONDENCE

Plaintiff, Brian G. Oatman, filed a civil rights complaint naming Kyle W. Burross, Carl H. 

Schiwart, and “unidentified assault team” as Defendants. ECF No. 1. By order signed February 

17, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to complete and file a questionnaire to provide further 

information regarding the claims he was asserting so that the Court could undertake the screening 

process required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a). ECF No. 7. The order cautioned that 

failure to comply might result in the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims without further notice. Plaintiff 

failed to respond to the order, although he did file a motion to appoint counsel and issue restraining 

order, ECF No. 8, which the Court denied. ECF No. 9. By order of dismissal and final judgment 

signed March 27, 2023, ECF Nos. 10 & 11, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for want of 

prosecution. The Court has now received correspondence from Plaintiff alleging that he did not 

receive the order to replead until April. ECF No. 12. Nevertheless, he has not answered and 

returned the questionnaire. He simply says that Burros was the leader of the unidentified assault 

team and that Schiwart was the supervisor. Of course, the doctrine of respondeat superior does 

not apply to a § 1983 action. Monell v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 

(1978). Moreover, even had he provided facts to show how each Defendant participated in the 

Case 7:22-cv-00101-O Document 13 Filed 05/02/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 62
2

event alleged, to establish a constitutional violation, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the 

deprivation alleged was sufficiently serious, i.e., deprived him of the minimal civilized measure 

of life's necessities, and that the prison official possessed a sufficiently culpable state of mind, i.e., 

the official acted with deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 

U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 664 (5th Cir. 2001). Here, papers Plaintiff 

attached to his complaint reflect that he did not suffer any harm. ECF No. 1 at 12. Thus, even if 

the Court were to interpret Plaintiff’s correspondence as a motion to alter or amend the judgment 

under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, there would be no basis for granting 

relief. To the extent Plaintiff now complains about the taking of his property, the Court notes that 

because Texas has adequate post-deprivation state remedies for the confiscation of prisoner 

property, a prisoner may not pursue his claim for deprivation of property in a § 1983 action. 

Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543–44 (5th Cir. 1994). To the extent he is claiming that he is 

being denied access to the courts, Plaintiff is free to file another lawsuit after he has exhausted his 

administrative remedies. 

SO ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 2023.

Case 7:22-cv-00101-O Document 13 Filed 05/02/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 63