IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

JUAN A. VILLARREAL §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-cv-121

STILES UNIT §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Juan A. Villarreal, an inmate confined at the Beto Unit of the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Stiles Unit.

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.

Factual Background

Plaintiff complains that he slipped and fell in the T-Pod shower in 18 Building. Plaintiff

claims he broke his femur and pelvis and needed surgery. As a result, Plaintiff claims he has two

rods in his femur and pelvis. Plaintiff also claims he has nerve damage in his right leg and pelvis. 

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). 

Case 1:23-cv-00121-MJT-CLS Document 11 Filed 11/13/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:

26
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. 

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 relief may 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 for failure 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. at 570). 

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

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

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

may be granted, all factual allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and construed favorably

to the plaintiff. Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Assoc., 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.

2

Case 1:23-cv-00121-MJT-CLS Document 11 Filed 11/13/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:

27
Analysis

Jural Authority

Plaintiff has named the Stiles Unit as the Defendant in this action. A plaintiff may not bring a civil 

rights claim against a servient political agency or department unless such agency or

department enjoys a separate and distinct legal existence. See Darby v. Pasadena Police Dep’t, 939

F.2d 311, 313 (5th Cir. 1991). The capacity of an entity to sue or to be sued is “determined by the

law of the state where the district court is located.” FED.R.CIV. P. 17(b). Unless the political entity

that created the department has taken “explicit steps to grant the servient agency with jural

authority,” the department lacks the capacity to sue or to be sued. Darby, 939 F.2d at 313; Howe

v. Polunsky Unit, No. 9:08cv142, 2010 WL 5640804 at *9 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2010), R & R 

adopted, No. 9:08cv142, 2011 WL 245566 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2011) (holding the Polunsky Unit of 

the TDCJ has no independent legal existence and cannot be sued in its own name); Pantoja v. 

Dallas County Jail, No. 3:01cv1620, 2001 WL 1343437 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 31, 2001) (concluding 

neither the Dallas County Jail, nor its medical staff and medical department are separate legal 

entities subject to suit).

The Plaintiff has the burden of showing that the unit or department has the capacity to be

sued. Darby, 939 F.2d at 314. Plaintiff, however, has failed to allege or demonstrate that the

Defendant in this action is a separate legal entity having jural authority with the capacity to be 

sued. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed as frivolous and for failing to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Recommendation

Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed as frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. 

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).

3

Case 1:23-cv-00121-MJT-CLS Document 11 Filed 11/13/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:

28
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 13th day of November, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00121-MJT-CLS Document 11 Filed 11/13/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:

29