1

 Because plaintiff sues Jim Bowles as Dallas County Sheriff, the Court will generally refer to him in that manner for ease

of reference. 

2

 Plaintiff’s answers to the questions posed by the Court constitute an amendment to the filed complaint. See Macias

v. Raul A. (Unknown), Badge No. 153, 23 F.3d 94, 97 (5th Cir. 1994). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

BENJAMIN DOUGLAS DICKEY, )

ID # 04028680, )

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) No. 3:04-CV-1398-K (BH)

) ECF

JIM BOWLES, et al., ) Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge

Defendants. )

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and an Order of the Court in implementation thereof, subject cause has previously been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The

findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are as follows:

I. BACKGROUND

In June 2004, plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated in the Dallas County Jail, filed this civil action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against former Sheriff of Dallas County Jim Bowles1 and the Dallas

County Jail. (See Compl. at 1.) On September 28, 2004, the Court received plaintiff’s Answers to

Magistrate Judge’s Questionnaire wherein he dropped the Dallas County Jail as a defendant and

added the Dallas County Sheriff’s Office as a defendant. (See Answer to Question 2 of Magistrate

Judge’s Questionnaire (MJQ).)2 

Plaintiff claims that, “while the custody of Dallas County Sheriff’s Office under the care of

Jim Bowles [he] was subjected to deliberate indifference to [his] safety and subjected to cruel and

 

 Case 3:04-cv-01398-K Document 10 Filed 04/13/06 Page 1 of 5 PageID 39
2

unusual punishment.” (Answer to Question 1 of MJQ.) His claims concern an attack by a mentally

ill inmate that occurred on April 28, 2004. (Id.; Compl. at attached page.) He seeks monetary

damages. (Compl. at 4.) No process has been issued in this case. 

II. PRELIMINARY SCREENING

Plaintiff is a prisoner who has been permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. As a prisoner

seeking redress from a governmental entity and an officer or employee of such entity, plaintiff’s

complaint is subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See Martin v. Scott,

156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1998). Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, his complaint is

also subject to screening under § 1915(e)(2). Both § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b) provide for sua

sponte dismissal of the complaint, or any portion thereof, if the Court finds it is frivolous or malicious,

if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief against a

defendant who is immune from such relief. See id.

A complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is “based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory.” Id. at 327. A claim lacks an arguable basis in fact when it describes “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 327-28. A complaint fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts

in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46

(1957); Smith v. Winter, 782 F.2d 508, 511-12 (5th Cir. 1986); Henrise v. Horvath, 94 F. Supp. 2d

768, 769 (N.D. Tex. 2000). 

 

 Case 3:04-cv-01398-K Document 10 Filed 04/13/06 Page 2 of 5 PageID 40
3

III. SECTION 1983 RELIEF

Plaintiff seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a sheriff and his office for injuries

resulting from an attack by another inmate. Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action and

affords redress for the “deprivation, under color of law, of a citizen’s ‘rights, privileges, or immunities

secured by the Constitution and laws’ of the United States.” Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107, 132

(1994). To state a claim under § 1983, plaintiff must allege facts that show (1) he has been deprived

of a right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States; and (2) the deprivation

occurred under color of state law. See Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155 (1978); Bass v.

Parkwood Hosp., 180 F.3d 234, 241 (5th Cir. 1999).

A. Claims Against Sheriff

Plaintiff sues Sheriff Bowles because he was “under his care.” In order to prevail against a

supervisor such as Sheriff Bowles under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must show that (1) the supervisor’s conduct directly caused a constitutional violation, or (2) the supervisor was “deliberately

indifferent” to a violation of a constitutional right. Breaux v. City of Garland, 205 F.3d 150, 161 (5th

Cir. 2000). The acts of a subordinate “trigger no individual § 1983 liability.” Champagne v. Jefferson

Parish Sheriff’s Office, 188 F.3d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1999). There must be some showing of personal

involvement by a particular individual defendant to prevail against such individual. Id.; Thompson

v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381, 382 (5th Cir. 1983). 

In this instance, plaintiff does not allege personal involvement by Sheriff Bowles. Plaintiff

makes no allegations that the Sheriff directly caused the alleged constitutional violations, or that he

was deliberately indifferent to a violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Plaintiff identifies no

 

 Case 3:04-cv-01398-K Document 10 Filed 04/13/06 Page 3 of 5 PageID 41
3

 Because pro se plaintiffs who name a non-jural entity as a defendant should be alerted and given an opportunity to

amend before dismissal of the action, see Parker v. Fort Worth Police Dep’t, 980 F.2d 1023, 1026 (5th Cir. 1993), the Court

informed plaintiff that the Dallas County Jail appeared to be a non-jural entity that is not subject to suit and gave him

the opportunity to identify a different defendant, (see Question 2 of MJQ). In response, plaintiff named the Dallas

County Sheriff’s Department as a defendant. Plaintiff has thus been accorded an opportunity to amend consistent with

Parker. Furthermore, had he persisted with his claims against the Dallas County Jail, such claims would meet the same

fate as his claims against the Dallas County Sheriff’s Office. See Dale v. Officer Bridges, No. 3:96-CV-3088-AH, 1997 WL

810033, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 1997) (holding that Dallas County Jail is not a legal entity that can be sued), aff’d,

154 F.3d 416 (5th Cir. 1998). 

4

specific incident or causative link between his claims and conduct on the part of Sheriff Bowles. He

makes no allegations of any policy that impinged his constitutional or federally protected rights.

Plaintiff’s claims against Sheriff Bowles are based, if anything, on his supervisory role as Sheriff of

Dallas County. (See Answers to Questions 1 and 4 of MJQ.) Consequently, such claims should be

dismissed. 

B. Claims Against Dallas County Sheriff’s Office

Plaintiff’s claims against the Dallas County Sheriff’s Office are likewise frivolous. A plaintiff

may not bring a civil rights action against a servient political agency or department, unless such

agency or department enjoys a separate and distinct legal existence. Darby v. Pasadena Police Dep’t,

939 F.2d 311, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1991) (holding that a police department is not a jural entity). In

Darby, the Fifth Circuit held that “unless the true political entity has taken explicit steps to grant

the servient agency with jural authority, the agency cannot engage in any litigation except in concert

with the government itself.” Id. at 313. The Dallas County Sheriff’s Office is not a jural entity that

can be sued. See Magnett v. Dallas County Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 3:96-CV-3191, 1998 WL 51355, at

*1 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 1998). Plaintiff thus seeks relief from an entity that is not subject to suit

under § 1983.3

 Accordingly, his claims against the Dallas County Sheriff’s Office are frivolous and

subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.

 

 Case 3:04-cv-01398-K Document 10 Filed 04/13/06 Page 4 of 5 PageID 42
4

 Section1915(g), which is commonly known as the “three-strikes” provision, provides:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding

under this section, if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in

any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the

grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless

the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

5

IV. RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the District Court summarily DISMISS

plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Such

dismissal will count as a “strike” or “prior occasion” within the meaning 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).4 

SIGNED this 13th day of April, 2006. 

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation on plaintiff by mailing a copy to him. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), any party who

desires to object to these findings, conclusions and recommendation must file and serve written

objections within ten days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically

identify those findings, conclusions, or recommendation to which objections are being made. The

District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory, or general objections. Failure to file written

objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within ten days after being

served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal

conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds

of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-01398-K Document 10 Filed 04/13/06 Page 5 of 5 PageID 43