### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 5 -00 709 -CV

Da vid M e nde z , A ppe lla nt

v. David Bal agia and T. Riley , Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN50081 0 , HO NORAB LE SUZ ANNE COVINGTO N , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
David Mende z appeals fr om the di strict court’s g rant of summar y judgme nt in favor of David Ba lag ia and T. Riley . We affir m the judgme nt.
BACK GR OUND Mendez is an inmate ser

ving a life sentenc e in the I nstitut ional Division of the Texas De pa rtme nt o f C ri min a l Just ic e (T DC J) on a c a pit a l mu rd e r c on vic tio n. He wa s in iti a lly bo ok e d in to the Travis County J ail in 1997 on capital murder charg es and was tried, convicted of capital murde r, and sente nced to c onfinement for life in TDCJ , as the State did not seek the death pe nalty . I n Marc h 2000, afte r sentenc ing but be fore transfe r to T DCJ , corr ections office rs classified Mendez as a “hig hse c ur ity ri sk inm a te ” ba se d on inf or matio n that he and ano the r inm a te we re pla nn ingto t a ke a

fe ma leMe nd e z v . S tate , 56 S.W .3d 880 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. ref ’d). 1 Me nd e z v . S tate , No. 03-03-00571- CR, 2004 Tex . App. L EXI S 11 2 1 6 , at 2 *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 16, 2004, pe t. ref’ d) (mem. op., not desig nated f or publication). 2 hostag e and a

ttempt to escape . This Court later re verse d Mendez’s co n v iction and
re mand e d f

or a ne w tri a l. 1 Mendez was be nch-w arr anted from TDCJ back to Tr avis County on J uly 3, 2002, and
was a g ain held in the Travis County J ail pending retria l. Upon his return to the c ounty jail, Mendez
was a g ain classifie d as a hig h-risk prisoner and was place d in administrative seg reg ation, wher e he
rema ined for the fifte en months he continued to be he ld there. Me ndez was ag ain convicte d of capital murde r, re ceive d a life se ntence , and wa s transfe rre d to TDCJ
. His second c onviction was
a ff ir me d b y thi s Co ur t. 2 Mendez, ac ting pr o se, later filed suit ag ainst Ba lagi a an d Riley , two corr ections of fi c e rs wi th t

he Tr avis County

She ri ff ’s Of fi c e . M e nd ez all eg e d th a t B a la g ia or de re d h im i nto administrative seg reg ation in J uly 2002 “knowingthat the esc ape a lleg atio n wa s false,” and complained that B alag ia’s conduc t c onstitut ed intentional infliction of emotional distress. Mendez further pleade d that Riley , “a rec reation of fice r,” forc ed him to wea

r leg irons during his recr eation p er i o d s that “would we ar a way plaintiff’s fle sh on his ankles” a nd that such conduc t constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress. L ibera lly construing his pleading s, Mendez also alleg es that Ril e y int e nti on a lly inf

lic te d emo tio na l di str e ss o n h im b y fa ili ngto p ro vid e him

a “ du e pr oc e ss hear ing” when plac ing him in admi nistrative seg reg ation and that B alag ia is vicariously liable for
su c h c on du c t.3 Ba l agi a a n d

R i l ey fi l eda “ n o ev i d en ce ” m o t i o nfo r s u m m ary j u d gm en tas s er t i n g, among other g rounds, (1) sovere ign immunit y and abse nce of a wa iver unde r the tort cla ims act, see Tex. Ci v. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.057 (West 2 0 0 5 ); (2) Me ndez “fa iled to state a
c on sti tut ion a lly

c og niza ble lib e rt y int e re st” ; (3) no e vid e nc e of “ e xtre me and

outr a g e ou s” c on du c t; and (4) no evidenc e of da mag es. In response , Mendez filed an a m en d ed p et i t i o n abandoningany claims ag ainst the two corr ections off icer s in their officia l capa cities and p u rp o rt i ng to proce ed ag ainst them exclusively in their individual capa ci t i es . The district cour t gr anted their

motion without stating the g rounds. This appea l followed.
DI SCU SSIO N I n s ix iss ue s on a

pp e a l, Me nd e z c ha lle ng e s the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s summa ry jud g me nt i n favor of B alag ia and Ri ley , attacking eac h of t he grounds raised in their motion. Mendez also argues that th e dis tr ic t cour t erred in g ra nti ngsumma

ry jud g me nt o n h is a lle g a tio n th a t B a la g ia is vicar iously

liable for Ri l ey ’s co nduct bec ause that gr ound was ne ver e x plicitly raised in the summary -judg ment motion.
Stand ard of review

We r eview the district court’s summar y judgme nt de novo. ValenceOperating Co.
v . D or se tt , 164 S.W .3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005). Be cause the di strict court’s order does not specify the g rounds for its summary

judgme nt, we must aff

irm the order

if any of t he grounds pr esente d to the district cour t ar e meritorious. Pr ov ide nt L ife& Ac c ide nt I ns . Co . v . Kn ott , 128 S.W .3d 211, 216 (T e x. 20 03 ); Sh esh un off

v . S he sh un off , 172 S.W .3d 686, 692 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied).4

We conclude that the motion for summary judgme nt must be affirme d on no-evide nce grounds. A no -e vid e nc e mot ion fo r summa ry jud g me nt mus t be g ra

nte d if , a ft e r a n a de qu a te time for discove ry , (1) the movingp ar t y as s er t s that there is no evidence of one or more e ssential
e le me nts of

a c la im or de fe ns e on

wh ic h a n a dv e rs e pa

rt y wo uld have the burd e n o f p ro of a t tr ia l, and (2) the nonmovant fails to pr oduce more than a scintilla of summary judgme nt evidence raising a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t on those elements. Te x . R. Civ. P. 166a(i). Ano-evide nce summar y judgme nt is essentially

a dire cted verdic t g rante d befor e trial, to which we apply a leg al-suff

iciency standard of

revie w. King Ranch, Inc. v. C hapman , 118 S.W .3d 742, 750-51 (Te x . 2003); Pe rd uev . P atte n Co rp ., 142 S.W .3d 596, 603 (Tex. App.—Aus t i n 2004, no pet.). A no- evidenc e
summa ry jud g me nt w ill be su sta ine d w he n ( 1) the re is a c omp le te a

bs e nc e of e vid e nc e of a

vit a l f a c t, (2) the c ourt is barr ed by

rules of la

w or of e vidence from g iving we ight to the only evidenc e off

ere d t o p ro v e a vital fac t, (3) the e vidence offe red to prove a vital fa ct is no more than a scintilla, or (4 ) t he e vid e nc e c on c lus ive ly e sta bli sh e s th e op po sit e of

a vital fa c t. King Ranch , 118 S.W .3d at 751. We view the evide nce in the lig ht most favorable to the non-movant, disreg arding all contra ry evidenc e and inf

ere nces. Id
. (c i t i n g Merre ll Dow P h arms., Inc. v . Havne r , 953 S.W .2d 706, 711 (Tex
. 1997)). More than a sc intill a of suppor ting e vidence exis ts if the evidenc e would allow
rea sonable a

nd fair- minded people to diffe r in their conc lusions. Id . “L ess th an a s ci n t illa of evidenc e exists when the evide nce is ‘so w eak a s to do no more than cr eate a mer e surmise or suspicion’ of a f

act.” Id
. (q u o t i n g Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc. , 650 S.W .2d 61, 63 (Tex. 1983)).5

Sum m ar y-

ju dgm e nt gr ounds To re c ov e r d ama g e s f

or int e nti on a l in fl ic tio n o f e mot ion a l di str e ss, a pla int if f m us t establish that (1) the de fenda nt acte d i n t en t i onally

or re cklessly ; (2) the de fenda nt’s conduct wa s extreme and outra g eous; (3) the defe ndant’s ac tions caused the pla intiff emotional distress; and (4) the e motional dist ress suff ere d b y t h e p laintiff was se vere . Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v . Zeltwanger , 144 S.W .3d 438, 445 (Tex. 2004)
. A defe ndant’s conduct satisfies the sec ond
e le me nt o nly

if it i s “ ‘s o o utr a g e ou s in

c ha ra c ter , and

so e xtre me in d e g re e , a s to g o b e y on d a ll possible bounds of dece ncy , an d t o b e re garde d as atroc ious, and utterly intolerable in a

civiliz ed community .’” Kro ge r Te x . Lt d. P’ sh ip v . S

ub e ru , 216 S
. W
. 3 d 7 88, 796 (Tex. 2006) ( q u o t i n g Twyman v. Twyman , 8 5 5 S. W. 2 d 6 1 9 , 6 2 1 ( T e x. 1 9 9 3 ) )
. “ M e r it o r io u s c la im s f or int e nti on a l inf

lic tio n of e mot ion a l dis tr e ss are re lativ e ly ra re pr e c ise ly be c a

us e mos t human c on du c t,
eve nth a t wh ic h c a

u s e s in ju r y to o th e r s , c an n o t b e f a ir ly c h ar a c te r iz e d

a s e xtr e me and outrag eous.” Id
.

I n his r esponse to the motion for summary judgme nt, Mendez attache d a letter from Ba lag ia and a document entitled “U nsworn De clar ation of David Mendez.” Ne ither item provides
more than a scintilla of evidenc e that Ba lag ia’s and Riley ’s conduct was “ extreme and outra g eous.”

I nt h e l et t er , d at edAp ri l 2 0 0 1 , Ba l agi a w ro t e M en d ez t h e f o l l o wi n g:
I n r e g ard s to the inc ide nt you we re i nv olve d in

wh ile inc arc e rate d in

the Tr a vis County ja il in

M ar c h o f 2 0 0 0 , th e inv e s ti g a ti o nc o u ld n o t p r o d u c e an y e v id e n c e or fac ts to support the alleg ation of an attempt to esca pe on your par

t. The investig ation also reve aled you to be a se curity risk.6 Me nd e z cl a ims that th is l e tte r i s e vid e nc e tha t he sh ou ld n ot h a ve been pl aced in
a dmi nis tr a tiv e se g re g a tio n. We n ote that, o n it s f a c e , th e le tter r efl ect s d e te rm inatio ns that w hil e Mendez had not ac tually

attempted to esc ape, he was none theless a se curity risk. This letter does not raise a fac t issue as t o whether placingMendez in administrative seg reg ation was “ extreme and
ou tr a g e ou s” c on du c t. S imi larl y , M e n d e z ’ s “ Un sw or n D e c lara tio n” pr ov ide s n o mo re tha n a sc int ill a of evide nce of “e x t re m e an d outrag eous conduc t.” In the dec laration, Mendez makes var ious
a lle g a tio ns , in c lud ingthat hi s le g c uf fs hurt his ank le s, that he ha d d if fi c ult y sle e ping wh il e in
a dmi nis tr a tiv e se g re g atio n, and that his many

c omp la int s and

g ri e va nc e s a bo ut b e ingpla c e d in
a dmi nis tr a tiv e se g re g a tio n a nd le g c uf fs we re ig no re d b y

pr iso n o ff

ic ia ls. Ev e n a c c e pti nga ll o f t he se
a lle g a tio ns a s tr

ue , w e ho ld t

hat th e y do no t r ise to t

he le ve l of

c on du ct th at is “s o o utr a g e ou s in char acte r, and so e x treme in de g ree , as to g o b ey o n d al l possible bounds of dece ncy , and to be reg arde d as atroc ious, and utterly intolerable in a

civiliz ed community .” Se e Su be ru , 216 S.W .3d at 796. We can find no authority holding that placing an inmate who ha s been de termined to be a
secur ity risk in administrative seg reg ation or legcuff s is “extreme and outra g eous conduc t,” nor doe s Mendez cite a

ny such authority
. We similarly reje ct Mendez’s claims that are predic ated on a perc eived r ight to a “ due proce ss hear ing” reg ardinghis placeme n t i n admi nistrative seg reg ation. “[A]bs ent extraordinar y circ umstances, a dminist rative se g reg ation as such , b e ingan incident to the or dinary life of a prisoner, will never be a g round for a constitutional claim.” Ma rti n v . S c ott , 156 F.3d 578, 580 ( 5th Cir. 1998) (labe ling suc h a cla im “frivolous”).Mendez also asser ts that the di strict court erre d in gr anting summary judgme nt based on 3 sovere ign immunity

beca use he non-suited his off

icial-c apac ity

claims. Be cause the other summar y ju dgmen t g ro un ds are su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s jud g me nt, we ne e d n ot r e a c h th is argument. 7

Fur ther, Mende z adduced no evidence of dama g es under his intentional-infliction claim. See H

offmann-La Roche , 144 S.W .3d at 438, 445. Fina lly , beca use the for eg oing grounds
a re di s p o s i t i v e o f M e n d e z ’ s c l a i m s a g a i n s t R i l e y , t h e y l i k e w i s e n e g a t e an y c l a i m t h a t B a l a g i a is vic ari ou s li a

ble fo r R ile y ’s c on du c t. These gr ounds are sufficie nt to support summ ary judgme nt in favor of

Ba lag ia and R i l e y. We a c c or din g ly

ov e rr ule Me nd e z’s iss ue s and a ff ir m the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s summa ry jud g me nt. 3

____________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pemberton Affir med Filed: Jul y

26, 2007