1

This action was dismissed with prejudice as to Defendants Bowles and the Jail Staff on November

3, 2005.

2

Johnson was dismissed as a Defendant on May 23, 2005.

Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LEE EDWIN CALDWELL, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-2166-L

§

DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This is a civil rights action brought by pro se Plaintiff Lee Edwin Caldwell (“Caldwell” or

“Plaintiff”) against Defendants Dallas County Sheriff Jim Bowles (“Bowles”), Dallas County Lew

Sterrett Medical and Jail Staff (“Jail Staff”),1

 Director TDCJ-ID Gary Johnson (“Johnson”),2 Doug

Dretke (“Dretke”), Mitchell County Hospital District (“MCHD”), Richard Hults (“Hults”), and Gail

Anderson (“Anderson”) (collectively “Defendants”). Caldwell asserts, among other things, that

while he was in the custody of the Dallas County Jail and Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Defendants violated his constitutional rights, engaged in medical neglect and caused him personal

injury. 

MCHD filed Defendant Mitchell County Hospital District’s Second Motion to Dismiss on

September 23, 2005. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), MCHD moves for dismissal of Caldwell’s

claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),

42 U.S. C. § 12132. MCHD maintains that: (1) Caldwell does not allege facts to state a

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02166-L Document 58 Filed 01/19/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID 580
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 2

constitutional claim against it under § 1983; and (2) Caldwell does not allege facts to support his

ADA claim, as he does not allege that he was excluded participation in or denied benefits of a

service, program or activity because of a disability. MCHD also requests the court to refuse to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Caldwell’s state law claims if his federal claims are

dismissed. Caldwell did not file a response to the motion.

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the court in implementation thereof, the

motion was referred to the United States magistrate judge for proposed findings and

recommendation. On December 13, 2005, the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the

United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) was filed. No objections to the Report have been filed.

The magistrate judge determined that Caldwell’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 minimally

satisfy the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), as he makes several allegations that

“arguably relate to the elements of municipal liability under § 1983.” Report at 5-6. After making

an independent review of the pleadings, motion, file and record in this case, and the findings and

recommendations of the magistrate judge, the court determines that the findings of the magistrate

judge are correct as to Caldwell’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate judge’s findings

and recommendation as to this claim are therefore accepted as those of the court. 

Regarding Caldwell’s claims under Title II of the ADA, the magistrate judge determined that

Caldwell failed to allege any elements of a prima facie case of discrimination under Title II of the

ADA. Specifically, the magistrate judge determined that Caldwell failed to allege in his complaint

that his ailments rise to the level of a “disability” as defined in the ADA; and failed to alleged that

he was treated inadequately because of his disability. Report at 6-7. The magistrate judge also

determined that Caldwell failed to identify any programs or services that excluded him as a result

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02166-L Document 58 Filed 01/19/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID 581
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 3

of his disability. Id. at 6. The magistrate judge thus recommended that MCHD’s motion to dismiss

be granted regarding these claims. 

After making an independent review of the pleadings, motion, file and record in this case,

and the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, the court determines that the

magistrate judge’s findings as to Caldwell’s ADA claims are incorrect. While Caldwell’s complaint

does not have the niceties of pleadings drafted by an attorney, the court believes that his ADA claim,

as alleged in his complaint, meets the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) — “a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Contrary to the magistrate

judge’s analysis, Caldwell’s complaint need not contain specific facts establishing a prima facie case

of discrimination under Title II of the ADA, but contain only a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that he is entitled to relief. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 508 (2002).

Caldwell’s complaint is replete with allegations that is disabled. He states that while at the Wallace

Unit in Mitchell County his attempts to advise jail and medical personnel of his disability, and to

receive the appropriate care, services and benefits as a result of his disability were either ignored or

denied. Complaint at 12 - 17. The court thus determines that Caldwell’s pleadings contain a short

and plain statement of his ADA claim showing that, if the allegations prove to be true, he is entitled

to relief; thus they are sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss. Whether or not Caldwell is disabled

under the law should be addressed by summary judgment, not by a motion to determine whether his

pleadings are sufficient. Discovery will reveal whether Caldwell meets the legal definition of

“disabled.” Accordingly, the court rejects the magistrate judges’ finding as to Caldwell’s ADA

claim. 

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02166-L Document 58 Filed 01/19/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID 582
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 4

The magistrate judge also recommended that the court defer any decision on exercising

supplemental jurisdiction over Caldwell’s state law claims pending further proceedings. The court

determines that the findings of the magistrate judge as to this issue are correct, and they are therefore

accepted as those of the court. 

For the reasons state herein, the court denies Defendant Mitchell County Hospital District’s

Second Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiff Lee Edwin Caldwell’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

claims under Title II of the ADA. The court defers any decision on exercising supplemental

jurisdiction over Caldwell’s state law claims, as there are remaining federal claims in this case. 

It is so ordered this 18th day of January, 2006.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02166-L Document 58 Filed 01/19/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID 583