Findings and Conclusions of the

United States Magistrate Judge Page -1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER KARIUKI, 05017630, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 3:05-CV-910-K

)

DALLAS COUNTY, ET AL., )

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 District Court, this

case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge follow:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

I. Parties

Plaintiff is currently confined in the Dallas County Jail. He brings this suit pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and the Court has granted him permission to

proceed in forma pauperis. Defendants are the Dallas County Jail, Dallas County, the University

of Texas Medical Branch (“UTMB”), Steve Manna and Dr. Flengin. 

II. Background

Plaintiff alleges that during his incarceration in the Dallas County Jail, he informed

Defendants that he was epileptic and that he required medication. He states he was offered

medication to which he was allergic. When he told the staff that he was allergic to the type of

medication they offered, he states they told him he was refusing medication. Plaintiff alleges he

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00910-K Document 8 Filed 09/08/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID 30
Findings and Conclusions of the

United States Magistrate Judge Page -2-

was not offered any other medication for weeks, although he requested other medication. 

Plaintiff claims he was also assigned to a top bunk, although he requested to be assigned

to a low bunk. He states that he has had numerous seizures and that because of these seizures he

fell from the top bunk to the floor and injured himself. He also states he received injuries when

other inmates attempted to put a spoon in his mouth during one of his seizures. Plaintiff seeks

compensatory damages.

III. Discussion

Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That

section provides in pertinent part:

The court shall review . . . as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil

action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or

employee of a governmental entity [and] [o]n review, the court shall identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2)

seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from suit. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and (b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (“Notwithstanding any filing

fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time

if the court determines that . . . (B) the action or appeal–(I) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to

state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant

who is immune from suit.”). 

Both § 1915A(b) and § 1915(e)(2)(B) provide for sua sponte dismissal if the Court finds

that the complaint is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A

complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00910-K Document 8 Filed 09/08/05 Page 2 of 5 PageID 31
Findings and Conclusions of the

United States Magistrate Judge Page -3-

it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that

would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).

A. Dallas County Jail

Plaintiff names the Dallas County Jail as a defendant. 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). A governmental department cannot engage in litigation “unless the true

political entity has taken explicit steps to grant the servient agency jural authority.” Darby, 939

F.2d at 313 (agency of city government). Governmental offices and departments do not have a

separate legal existence. See, e.g. Magnett v. Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, No. 3:96-CV3191, 1998 U.S. Dist. WL 51355 at *1 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 1998) (finding Dallas County

Sheriff’s Department not a legal entity); Lindley v. Bowles, No. 3:02-CV-595-P, 2002 WL

1315466 at *2 (N.D. Tex. June 12, 2002) (finding Dallas County Jail is not a proper defendant

with a jural existence). Prenosil v. Dallas County Jail, No. 3:93-CV-1130-D, slip op. at 2 (N.D.

Tex. Jan. 2, 1995) (same). Dallas County Jail should therefore be dismissed.

B. UTMB

Plaintiff names the UTMB as a Defendant. The Fifth Circuit has held that the UTMB is

an agency of the State of Texas and, as such, is immune to suit in federal court under the

Eleventh Amendment. Sampson v. United States, 73 Fed. Appx. 48, 49 (5th Cir. 2003)

(unpublished per curiam). Plaintiff’s claims against UTMB should therefore be dismissed. 

C. Remaining Defendants

Plaintiff argues Defendants Steve Manna, Dr. Flengin and Dallas County refused to

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00910-K Document 8 Filed 09/08/05 Page 3 of 5 PageID 32
Findings and Conclusions of the

United States Magistrate Judge Page -4-

provide him with proper medical care for epilepsy and as a result, he suffered injuries. 

Plaintiff’s denial of medical care claim is governed by the “deliberate indifference” standard of

the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. U.S. CONST. amend. VIII; Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976). 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.” Id. 429 U.S. at 106. This 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 (1994)). 

Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, the Court is unable to determine at this point that

Plaintiff’s allegations are frivolous. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims against these

Defendants should proceed and process should be issued as to these Defendants

RECOMMENDATION

The Court recommends that: (1) Plaintiff’s claims against Dallas County, Steve Manna

and Dr. Flengin should proceed and process should be issued as to these Defendants; and (2)

Plaintiff’s claims against the Dallas County Jail and the UTMB should be dismissed with

prejudice as frivolous.

Signed September 8, 2005.

_____________________________________

PAUL D. STICKNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00910-K Document 8 Filed 09/08/05 Page 4 of 5 PageID 33
Findings and Conclusions of the

United States Magistrate Judge Page -5-

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 by United States Mail. Pursuant to Title

28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to these findings,

conclusions and recommendation must serve and file 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. A party's failure to file such written

objections to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation shall bar that party from

a de novo determination by the District Court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). 

Additionally, any 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, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

_____________________________________

PAUL D. STICKNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00910-K Document 8 Filed 09/08/05 Page 5 of 5 PageID 34