IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

ROBERT D. HINSON §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-cv-194

JCCF MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, ET AL. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Robert D. Hinson, an inmate formerlyconfined at the Jefferson CountyCorrectional

Facility, proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the

JCCF Medical Department, Kim King, and Zena Stephens. 

The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge

for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

Standard of Review

An in forma pauperis proceeding may be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or

(3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 

A complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous

where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989);

Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005); McCormick v. Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059, 1061

(5th Cir. 1997). A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably

meritless legal theory. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). 

In addition to the legal basis of the complaint, Section 1915 empowers the court to pierce the

veil of the complainant’s factual allegations if they are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504

U.S. 25, 32 (1992); Ancar v. Sara Plasma, Inc., 964 F.2d 465 (5th Cir. 1992). A complaint lacks

an arguable basis in fact if, after providing the plaintiff the opportunity to present additional facts

when necessary, the facts alleged are clearly baseless. Denton, 504 U.S. at 32. 

Case 1:23-cv-00194-MJT-CLS Document 19 Filed 05/14/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:

51
In Denton v. Hernandez, the Supreme Court “declined the invitation to reduce the clearly

baseless inquiry to a monolithic standard.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. Examples of complaints within

the clearly baseless inquiry are those which describe fanciful, fantastic, or delusional scenarios. A

complaint is factually frivolous if the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or wholly

incredible. Pleaded facts which are merely improbable or strange, however, are not clearly baseless

for Section 1915(d) purposes. Id.

A complaint fails to state a claim upon which reliefmay be granted if the factual allegations

are not sufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Dismissal forfailure to state a claim is appropriate when the plaintiff has

failed to plead “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible

on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570). 

Plaintiffs must state enough facts to “nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to

plausible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570. 

In considering whether to dismiss a complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted, all factual allegationsin the complaintmust be taken as true and construed favorably

to the plaintiff. Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 1993). 

However, conclusory allegations and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will

not suffice to prevent dismissal for failure to state a claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

Discussion

Plaintiff complains he has been denied adequate medical care since his arrival at the jail on

August 19, 2021. Plaintiff claims he has polyps in the mucus membrane of his nose which have

caused him to suffer from allergies and asthma. Plaintiff claims the defendant King and others 

have given him “the runaround about seeing a specialist.” Plaintiff also alleges that he and 

another black inmate have been denied being sent to a specialist for their medical problems while 

a white inmate has been to a specialist for a hurt finger. 

2

Case 1:23-cv-00194-MJT-CLS Document 19 Filed 05/14/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:

52
Plaintiff has previously filed another civil rights case in this court against the JCCF Medical

Department, Kim King, and Zena Stephens concerning the same subject as the claims which form

the basis of this complant. In the previous case, plaintiff asserts that he has been denied adequate

medical treatment for polyps growing in his mucous membrane which are causing him allergies and

asthma. Plaintiff claims he has been told that removal of the polyps would stop his allergies and

asthma, but he has not received surgery to remove them. See Hinson v. JCCF Med. Dep’t, No.

1:23cv42 (E.D. Tex.). The case is presently pending before this court. 

If plaintiff pursues his claims in both actions separately it will cause plaintiff to pay an

additional $350.00 filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Thus, the instant cause of action

should be dismissed without prejudice to his ability to pursue his claims in his first case.

Further, if pursued as two separate lawsuits, this action is repetitious and malicious under 28

U.S.C. § 1915. See Brown v. Tex. Bd. of Nursing, 554 F. App’x 268, 269 (5th Cir. 2014) (case

involving claims stemming from same incident already challenged is malicious), citing Pittman v.

Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[D]eclaring that a successive in forma pauperis suit is

‘malicious’ . . . insures that the plaintiff obtains one bite at the litigation apple - but not more.”);

Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal as frivolous where case

involved claims duplicative of the plaintiff’s prior litigation and concluding repetitious litigation is

subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as malicious). 

Any additional facts plaintiff desires to bring to the court’s attention about the claims should

be brought in his previous lawsuit styled Hinson v. JCCF Med. Dep’t, No. 1:23cv42.

Recommendation

The above-styled civil rights action should be dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff’s

ability to pursue his claims in his other pending lawsuit styled Hinson v. JCCF Med. Dep’t, No.

1:23cv42.

Case 1:23-cv-00194-MJT-CLS Document 19 Filed 05/14/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:

53
Objections

Within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge’s report, any

party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C).

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an

aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal

conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R.

CIV. P. 72.

4

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 14th day of May, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00194-MJT-CLS Document 19 Filed 05/14/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:

54