1

Plaintiff’s answers to the Magistrate Judge’s Questionnaire constitute an amendment to

the filed complaint. See Macias v. Raul a. (Uknown), Badge No. 153, 23 F.3d 94, 97 (5th Cir.

1994).

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

JAMES L. JACKSON, 04066053, )

Plaintiff, )

v. ) No. 3:05-CV-1072-N

)

DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT., )

Defendant. )

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. 

II. Background

Plaintiff alleges that during his incarceration, he was diagnosed as having a skin disorder. 

He states his condition has become worse, but he has received no treatment during his

incarceration. He names the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department as a defendant. In response to

the Magistrate Judge’s Questionnaire, he also names Dallas County and the University of Texas

Medical Branch as Defendants.1

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01072-N Document 6 Filed 06/16/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID 17
Findings and Conclusions of the

United States Magistrate Judge Page -2-

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

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 Sheriff’s Department

Plaintiff names the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department 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

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01072-N Document 6 Filed 06/16/05 Page 2 of 5 PageID 18
Findings and Conclusions of the

United States Magistrate Judge Page -3-

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-CV-3191, 1998 U.S. Dist. WL 51355 at *1 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 1998)

(finding Dallas County Sheriff’s Department not a legal entity); Prenosil v. Dallas County Jail,

No. 3:93-CV-1130-D, slip op. at 2 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 2, 1995) (finding Dallas County Health

Department is not a jural entity); Stuart v. Sheriff of Dallas County, No.:01-CV-2129-L, 2003

U.S. Dist. WL 21418630 (N.D. Tex. March 27, 2003) (finding Dallas County Medical

Department is not a jural entity). The Dallas County Sheriff’s Department should therefore be

dismissed.

B. University of Texas Medical Branch

Plaintiff attempts to sue UTMB, the provider of medical services at the jail. UTMB is an

agency of the State of Texas. See Sampson v. United States, 73 Fed. Apex. 48, 49, 2003 WL

21919906, *1 (5th Cir. 2003) (unpublished per curiam); O’Rourke v. United States, 298 F.

Supp.2d 531, 535-36 (E.D. Tex. 2004). As such, it is immune from suit in federal court under

the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State

Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989). This Defendant should therefore be dismissed.

C. Dallas County

Plaintiff names Dallas County as a defendant. He states that Dallas County did not

provide him medical care for his skin condition, although he has requested medical care

numerous times. Plaintiff’s denial of medical care claim is governed by the “deliberate

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01072-N Document 6 Filed 06/16/05 Page 3 of 5 PageID 19
Findings and Conclusions of the

United States Magistrate Judge Page -4-

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 Dallas County

should proceed and process should be issued as to this Defendant.

RECOMMENDATION

The Court recommends that: (1) Plaintiff’s claims against Dallas County should proceed

and process should be issued as to this Defendant; (2) Plaintiff’s claims against the Dallas

County Sheriff’s Department and the UTMB should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.

Signed June 16, 2005.

_____________________________________

PAUL D. STICKNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01072-N Document 6 Filed 06/16/05 Page 4 of 5 PageID 20
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, 106 S. Ct.

466, 472 (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 Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

_____________________________________

PAUL D. STICKNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01072-N Document 6 Filed 06/16/05 Page 5 of 5 PageID 21