IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

FREDERICK WEATHERSPOON §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

VS. § NO. 3-05-CV-0586-P

§ 

LUPE VALDEZ, ET AL. §

§

Defendants. §

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case has been referred to the United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b) and a standing order of reference from the district court. The findings and recommendation

of the magistrate judge are as follow:

I.

This is a pro se civil rights action brought by Plaintiff Frederick Weatherspoon, an inmate

in the Dallas County Jail, against various jail employees and supervisory officials. On March 24,

2005, plaintiff tendered a complaint to the district clerk and filed an application to proceed in forma

pauperis. Because the information provided by plaintiff in his pauper's affidavit indicates that he

lacks the funds necessary to prosecute this case, the court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis

and allowed the complaint to be filed. Written interrogatories then were sent to plaintiff in order to

obtain additional information about the factual basis of his suit. See Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d

179, 181 (5th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff filed his interrogatory answers with the district clerk on May 10,

2005. The court now determines that this action should be summarily dismissed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00586-P Document 8 Filed 05/17/05 Page 1 of 4 PageID 33
II.

Plaintiff alleges that Officer Andrews and a medical technician named "Roselyn" refuse to

dispense prescription medication for his bi-polar disorder and other mental illnesses if he attends

morning recreation sessions. According to plaintiff, forcing him to chose between receiving his

medication and participating in daily recreation has resulted in "pain and suffering." (Plf. Compl.

at 4). By this suit, plaintiff seeks unspecified money damages.

A.

A district court may summarily dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it concludes

that the action:

(1) is frivolous or malicious;

(2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or

(3) seeks money relief against a defendant who is immune from

such relief. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831-32, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); HensonEl v. Rogers, 923 F.2d 51, 53 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 2863 (1991). A complaint fails to

state a claim "if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved

consistent with the allegations." Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2232,

81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984). The court must assume that the facts set forth in the complaint are true. See

Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 164,

113 S.Ct. 1160, 1161, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993). However, dismissal is proper where "even the most

sympathetic reading of [the] pleadings uncovers no theory and no facts that would subject the

present defendants to liability." Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 791-92 (5th Cir. 1986).

B.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00586-P Document 8 Filed 05/17/05 Page 2 of 4 PageID 34
The court initially observes that plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Dallas County

Sheriff Lupe Valdez and Dr. Oliver, Director of the UTMB Mental Health Medical Department.

As supervisors, Valdez and Oliver are liable only if: (1) they affirmatively participated in acts that

caused a constitutional deprivation; or (2) implemented unconstitutional policies that resulted in

injury to plaintiff. Mouille v. City of Live Oak, Texas, 977 F.2d 924, 929 (5th Cir. 1992), cert.

denied, 113 S.Ct. 2443 (1993). It is clear from plaintiff's interrogatory answers that neither

defendant was personally involved in the alleged constitutional deprivations made the basis of this

suit. Instead, plaintiff maintains that Valdez and Oliver are liable for the actions of their

subordinates. Such allegations are insufficient to state a claim against these defendants in their

individual capacities. See Jett v. Dallas Independent School Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 736, 109 S.Ct.

2702, 2723, 105 L.Ed.2d 598 (1989); Morgan v. Dallas County Sheriff's Dep't, 2005 WL 57282 at

*2 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2005).

C.

The court further determines that plaintiff has failed to state a claim for denial of medical

care. In order to establish a constitutional violation, plaintiff must show that jail officials acted with

deliberate indifference to his medical needs such as to cause the "unnecessary or wanton infliction

of pain." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 292, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). This, in

turn, requires proof that defendants were subjectively aware of a substantial risk of serious harm and

failed to take reasonable measures to abate that risk. Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 649 (5th

Cir. 1996), citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1984, 128 L.Ed.2d 811

(1994). Moreover, a prisoner may not bring a civil rights action for mental or emotional injury

suffered while in custody "without a prior showing of physical injury." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e; see also

Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997) ("physical injury" must be more than de

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00586-P Document 8 Filed 05/17/05 Page 3 of 4 PageID 35
 1

 The court notes that plaintiff's complaint is nearly identical to that filed by another Dallas County Jail inmate,

Timothy Bargalla, on March 24, 2005. The magistrate judge also has recommended the summary dismissal of Bargalla's

complaint. Bargalla v. Valdez, No. 3-05-CV-0593-M (N.D. Tex. May 13, 2005).

minimis, but need not be significant.). 

Assuming arguendo that jail officials were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's medical

needs by refusing to dispense prescription medication on the days he chooses to attend morning

recreation sessions, no facts are alleged to prove anything more than a de minimis injury resulting

therefrom. Plaintiff claims only that he experiences "pain and suffering," "moderate to severe

depression," and "mood swings." (Plf. Compl. at 4 & Spears Quest. #2(c)). This is insufficient to

establish "physical injury" under the PLRA. See Morgan, 2005 WL 57282 at *2 (allegation that

plaintiff suffered "undue pain . . . on a regular basis" insufficient to establish physical injury).1

RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff's complaint should be summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner

provided by law. Any party may file written objections to the recommendation within 10 days after

being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). The failure to file

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 Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415,

1417 (5th Cir. 1996).

 DATED: May 17, 2005.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00586-P Document 8 Filed 05/17/05 Page 4 of 4 PageID 36